Skip to main content

Full text of "The Classical review"

See other formats 


Ω re ee th mene - 
- eee ries > 
oes 


HANDBOUND 
AT THE 


7 


ee 


- 
— 
- 
υ 
᾿ 
ly 
f roa 
j 
᾽ " Ὁ 
1 
i 
i 
"1 
) 
i ᾿ 
᾿ i 
υ om 
I 
’ 
i 
Tt ᾿ 
Z i 
τ 
fe 5 
1 
a ᾿ if 
” i ᾿ ἵν 7 
i ᾿ ὃ i co 
it i e 
Ἷ © 
1 
i i 
᾿ : ἮΝ j 
ΠΣ ; 


CLASSICAL 
REVIEW. 


VOLUME IV. 


Wondon : 
DAVID NULE 270 STRAND: 
1890. 


iv 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Me. 5. 


PAGE 


A Future Life as represented by the 


Greek Tragedians. M. M. Danien 81 TORR > ¥ . 126 
Political Allusions in the Supplices of Schmidt’s Handbook of Greek and Latin 

Euripides. P. GILEs . ; 95 Synonyms. A. ὃ. WILKINS . . 128 
The Plot of the Agamemnon. A. PLatr 98 | Perrin’s Edition of Homer’s Odyssey, 
Construction of Clauses Expressive of Books I-IV. R. P. Kerr. « 129 

Expectation in Greek. W. T. Len- Hoffmann on the Indo- Germanic Present. 

DRUM ἢ ee ae UY J. H. Mouton 5129 
Ancient Law ‘of Search for Stolen Notes. 

Property. H.C. Marcnant... .101 Thue. v. 68. Οἱ, E. Graves 129 
Notes on the Theaetetus. J. Adam. . 102 Catullus Attis 62. A. Parmer. . . 130 
Greek MSS. in Italian Libraries. T. W. Propertius 11, xx.—xxv. and xxv. 19. 

ALLEN .. ae es omer LOS A.C. PEARSON. . . ope glad 
Tucker’s Supplices. “A. E. Housman . 105 On the Iterative Use of dv. C. 
Rutherford’s Thucydides IV. R. Y. HARRISON. . . Sees ει 

TYRRELL .. Be aK) Greek Version of some lines of 
Couat’s Ancient Attic Comedy. R. Y. Coleridge. W.T. Lenprum .. . 131 

TYRRELL . . . 112 | Obituary. 

Two Editions of Andocides, Morris H. Henry S. Frieze, LL.D. M. L. D’Ooge 131 

MorcGan . 114 | Archaeology. 

A Translation of the Argonautica of Athena Parthenos. A. 8. Murray . 132 

Apollonius Rhodius. R. C. Seaton . 116 Arion, Se WerlvpeATON (.. <2 . 134 
Owen’s Edition of the Tristia. G. M. Acquisitions of British Museum. C. 8. 135 

Epwarpbs . “18 Brinton’s Ethnologic Affinities of the 
Hardy’s Edition of the Correspondence Ktruscans. . . 136 

between Pliny and eee dnt. B: ᾿Αφροδίτη ἜΣ ΝΣ "7. Warkiss 

Mayor. . . 120 Lioyp . 136 
Bury’s History of the Later Roman Summaries of Periodicals 137 

Empire. T. HopeKin . . . 124 | Bibliography. . . 142 

No.4. 
The Gameof Harpastum. Οὐ. E. Marinpin145 | Luchs’ Livy. Vol.iv. M. T. Tarnam 181 
Echoed Phrases in the ee G. Ebert’s History of Later Latin Litera- 

C.-M. Suira =. Os 2. sie bore, τ Ee ἢ. 1 x. pi er 1 eed 
Mr. Whitelaw on 2 Cor. vi. 2—vii. 1. Edwardes’ Sardinia. Ο. Torr 181 

F. H. Cuase . path ΣΕ Mule loO.| Notes! 

Studies in Caesar. I. E.G. Srauer . 152 Aesch. Ag. 425. J. B. Bury 182 
Horatiana. J. Gow . 154 374. 8. J. WARREN 182 
Omentum. G. F. SrTrt . : . 156 Eur. Phoen. 854. 8. THELWALL 182 
Hadley’s Hippolytus. R. Wurretaw . 158 An Allusion to the Cypria in Plato. 

Flagg’s Iphigenia in Tauris. <A. E. W. R. Harvie . 182 

Housman . . .160 | Athanasius de Incarn. E, N. Bennerr 182 
Two Books on Bite ror biud ‘J.P. Posteate 162 δολιχόσκιος. W.H. Ὁ. Rouse . 183 
The New Edition of Reisig’s Vorlesun- | Hasta Ferrata. F. York Powett . 183 

gen. J. HE. Nixon . Set geese 163 Manil. 1. 809. Rosryson EL.is 184 
Hogue’s Greek Irregular Verbs.  E. | Four Versions of Lord Tennyson’s 

C. Marcuanr .166 | ‘Crossing the Bar.’ . 184 
Simcox’s Language of the “New Testa | Archaeology. 

ment. F, ΠΕΝΡΑΙΜ, . .168 | Site of Olba. ΟΣ Smire . . 185 
Delbriick’s Indogermanic Terms of Acquisitions of Brit. Mus. , . 186 

κατ ΞΡ. ΒΒ: 1) Wane ye ends. 171 Dirae. A. 5. Murray aa . 187 
Soltau’s Punic of Plautus. D. S. Notes on some former Articles. Ὃ. 8. 187 

MaRGOLIOUTH . . ae Latin Inscriptions in the Nottingham 
The New Edition of Hermann’s Greek Museum. F.Granczer .... . 187 

Antiquities. 1: Wi. WYshsc. tee |09 Wiener Vorlegebliitter. C.S. . . . 188 
Toeptter’s Attische Genealogie. A. Η. Studniczka’s Kyrene, W. WrotH . 188 

GREENIDGE oat . 178 Summaries . “80 
Drake’s De Corona οὗ Demosthenes. Bibliography . 192 


(th Edit. E. C. Marcuanr . 


PAGE 
Rawlinson’s History of Phoenicia. Ὁ. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


No. 


PAGE 
Ropinson ELuis: Some Emendations of 


Manilius . . “195 
J. Gow: πεν IL Src Mavoctian 
Recension. . ernie LOG 


E. G. SILER : Caesar Studies I. (contd.) 198 
M. A. Bayrietp: On Conditional 


ἘΝ 41.2. ἐπ πὴ ἐσ 200 
Classen’s Thucydides II. E. Ὁ. 
MarRcHANT . 2203 


ἘΠ Miuller’s Thucydides ὙΠ C.F. Sar 207 
L. v. Sybel’s Bee of Plato. L. 


CAMPBELL. . PCPA. aol nin 209 
Headlam’s Eur. Tph. in Atul!) pba: 
ENGLAND .. 2210 


Coray’s Notes on Hesychius. J. B. Bory 211 
Two Editions of Plautus’ Menaechmi. 


E. A. SONNENSCHEIN . . . 212 
A Manuscript of Catullus. ᾿ΈΟΒΙΧΘΟΝ 
EELS. . : anst 214 


Peter’s Fasti aS Oxia: “τὰ 6. Owen 5g BUS 
Diirr’s Life of Juvenal. E. G. Harpy . 216 
Helmreich’s Marcellus. J. E. B. Mayor 218 
Allen’s Abbreviations in Greek MSS. 


EK. Maunpe THompson.. . ξεν. 1210 
Treuber’s Histor y of the Lycian Ev. 
FAROE Tiel τ Se et all 


G. R. Scorr: Two MSS. of Persius. . 341 
R. Wuireraw: On 2 Cor. 6, a 1 


areply . . 248 
Poppo- ‘Stah’s Thueydides: de Ν Ἢ: N. 

IOWLERI τ΄. : . 249 
Bayfield’s lon ἘΠ πεν ipides. oP. 

WHITELAW . . Ἐπ ΘΠ] 
Orelli-Mewes’ Flows: aor: pitta ie W. 

T. LENDRUM. . τ DOD 
Goetz’s Corpus Glas re | Iv. ἘΠῚ 

NETTLESHIP . . fede a SD 
Essays by Studemund’ 5 ‘pupils. KE. A. 

SONNENSCHEIN . . e205 
Schaefer’s Manual oft fie ἘῸΝ ΤΟΣ for 

Greek Hist. R. W. Macan... . 257 
Budge’s Pseudo-Callisthenes on ‘Alexan- 

der. D.S. MarGouiouTH . . . 259 
Goodwin’s Moods and Tenses. D. ἘΝ 

Monro. . + SPA 
Way’s Iliad in "English ‘Verse. Ww; 

EVERETT .. . 263 
Abbott and iNathesonta, Deeehhencs 

E. C. MARcHANT. . S267 


Stephenson’s Livy IV. M. T. TaTHAM 268 
Joannides’ Conversations in Attic 
Greek: J<-D,GoopEnn .. «6242121 +7268 


δ. 


Kubitschek’s Imp. Rom. 


criptum. E.G. Harpy . 


Haigh’s Attic Theatre. A. 
Kelsey’s Xen. Anab. 1-IV. 


Fausset’s Student’s Cicero. 


tributim dis- 


W. Rees 
S. R. WINANS 


G. E. JEANS 2 


Sedlmayer’s Selections from Ovid. 58. 


G. OwEN 


Giildenpenning’ ‘Siieadocet., A eas 


Notes. 


Eur. Rhesus (passim). C. E. PALMER : 


Difficulties in Juv., Sat. I. H. M. 


STEPHENSON . 


Juv. 8, 192. W. Τ᾿ Lenprum 
Pers.15. 1334) ἘΣ 1Ὁ Morten. 


ε al / 
oO δεῖνα---νήδυμος---οὔτας. 


χλωρηΐς. G. E. MARINDIN . 


Archaeology. 
Protogenes of Kaunos. 


Three Books on Lat. Epigr aphy. F. 


HAVERFIELD 


Tho Shank andithe, Whales 
The Gortyna Inscriptions. 


Journals 5 
Summaries of Periodicals, 


Announcements of Forthcoming Books : 


List of New Books . 


30: 


Notes. 


Pindar, Nem. 9; 16.;'10; 61. W.-R: 


Harpe ᾿ 3 
Phues2; 495.2; 58. Ez 


1 Be Bony 2 

C. Torr . 
C. We 9 
C. SmirH 2 


(: Minera 


Thucso 662. ἘΠῚ Hox. & 
Eur. EL 608. C. H. KEEene 
Seisachtheia. W. W. μουν. 


Cic. Clu. 88 167, 169. 


Archaeology. 


P. SANDFORD : 
Pers. 8. 1, 78. P.SANDFoRD . 

Juv. 8. 2, Ue, P. SANDFORD . ‘ 
Hor. C. 4, 2,49. A. Housman 
Dares ες gius. J. H. 
Omentum. cE D. DARBISHIRE . 


ΤΟΡΤΟΝ 


Dr. Dorpfeld on the Greek Theatre. 


JANE E. HARRISON . 


Dr. Dorpfeld on the Logeion. ye E. 


HaicH . 


Acquisitions of ‘Be iets Museen C. 


SMITH 


Paton ; 
τρίλιθος. C. ane 


An Inscription ae om “Paphos. i we ἜΝ 


Aristotle Econ. 2, 2, 23. 


Journals . 


Summaries of Per adits 


List of New Books . 


C. owe 


pw weer 
“1.-1 -1 


PAGE 


221 
223 
227 
27 


. 228 
228 


vi 
No. 
PAGE 
T. W. Aten: Foreign MSS. of the 
Tliad (Rome) . 289 
T. C. Snow: On the Brace sion: ae 
Ancient Greek . Hee Δ [ΠῚ ϊ . 293 
C. Harrison: Remarks on Mr. Bay- 
field’s Paper . food 


FLA πα δα es Mbsatotle “πη δε iv. 01299 


Verrall’s Agamemnon. L. CAMPBELL . 299 
Plutarchi Moralia, ἀντ ee Vol. 

eA”. SElompENn. .. eo O6 
Larsen’s Studia in Plut. Mor. eee A. 

HOLDEN. . ἢ": . 006 
The Ambrosian Palimpsest of Piawus, 

EK. A. SONNENSCHEIN . : 308 
Postgate’s Catullus. 8. G. OnEn 5 310 
Editions of the Iliad by Cauer, δον 

and Christ. W. Lear .. 5 ls) 
Bergk’s Anthologia Lyrica, ed. ied : 

gb AY eae als 
Xenophon’s Hallonte πὶ by ΤᾺ ΠΥ 

Dowdall. H. Μ. Rrynoups . woud 
Zangemeister’s Orosius 314 
πῆτε Studia Ambrosiana .. 2 914 
Oman’s History of Greece. A. H. Cooxr 314 
Greek and Latin Grammars on the 

Inductive Method. T. Τὴ. GooprELu , 315 
Sonnenschein’s Latin Accidence. P 

CIES. Boe. π᾿ ccc ae τ π᾿ τ} 0 
Notes. 

F. H. Cuase and R. WHITELAW on 2 

Corn Vi 2——Val.. Te 911 
No 
Horatiana, Keller’s Three Classes of 

MSS. J.Gow... to RU Boll 
Notes on Latin Poets. ἊΣ: E. Wisusaes 340 | 
Latin Aorist ἀν φῶ" ἘΣ A. 

KIRKPATRICK ‘ . 042 
A Peculiarity in the “Escurial “MS. of 

Nonius. ὟΝ. M. Linpsay . wo 46 
Apparatus Criticus ad Ciceronis Tibros 

De Natura Deorum. P. ScHWENKE . 347 | 
Notes on Tucker’s Sa ον W. 

HEADLAM. . bod D 
On Some Passages in Plato’ 5 Republic | 

J. ADAM . 096 || 
Some Readings in “ie fee MS. Dot | 

Plato’s Republic. Lewis CAMPBELL . 358 | 


2 Cor. VI. 14—VII. 1. 
Xenophon’s Hellenica by Keller. 


ὟΝ. Sanpay . 359 
H. 


A. HoLpen 360 
Hartman’s Analecta Nova Xenophontea. 
H. A. Houpen. 361 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


pe 


Way’s Translation of the Iliad. T. 

C. Snow .. ae eels 
Pindar, Nem. X. 5, isc. 63. AW: R. 

HARDIE. . Bebe 95 
Pindar, Ol. Wil ΤῊΣ R. Paran εἰς Oey 
Aesch. Ag. 1273. T.C. Snow . 319 
Herod. We 77. KR. Proctor . Ree 3 19, 
St. John XII. 3. νάρδου motixjs. E. 

N. BENNETT. . . 910 
2 Cor. 111,18. . τ Ween 319 
Catullus 64,107. W. Everert . 319 
Persius III. 39. P.Sanprorp . 319 
Fulcire. J. P. PostGate J 33e02 0 
Goodwin’s Moods and Tenses. E. C. 

MARCHANT MMR aS Sie P07 itt ko 
Zoological Notes. D’Arcy THompson 

Aiba, A oe . 320 

Archaeology. 
Cilician Symbols. J. THEopoRE Bent 321 
Scriptural Slabs from Mesopotamia. 

Hi MAL We BUDGE RO ead oS) Gam ieiee2 
Greek Coins at Berlin. W. Wrote . 323 
Greek Coins in British Museum. H. 

N. FowLEer : 3824 
Acquisitions in Brigiahs Museu C. 5, 990 
Inscriptions in Nottingham Museum. 

F. GRANGER . . 026 
Journals, &e. : . 326 

Summaries of Berindicale 338 
Bibliography 342 
wis 
Platonis Euthyphro by Adam. L. 
CAMPBELL - ᾿ ΘΟ 
Schwabe’s Aelius tnd ῬΑ μὴ ash EAC: 
MarcHANT oOo 
Werner’s St. Paul er aineusieass A. 
PLUMMER. . 301 
_ A Greek Legend of St. Michael by Max 
Bonnet. ἊΣ ἼΟΒΕΒΤΒΟΝ.. . 368 
Intermediate Greek Lexicon. F. Ἐ 
ΠΙΚΉ ΒΕ, “1370 
H. D. Miiller on the Tado: ΓΕ 
Verb. CHR. Cookson au fll 
Moulton on the Ancient Clatsical 
Drama. κὰν. S. HADLEY. . . santa 
Erdmann’s History οἵ Philosophy. 
Pau SHOREY ὦ OUD 
Rohde’s Psyche. JANE HARRISON . 376 
| Kluge on the Growth of the Iliad. Ac 
FAIRBANKS ; : Bile 
Thompson’s Homeric Gramma ar . 378 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


PAGE 
Proverbs in the Roman Comedians.  E. 
ἘΣ NORRIS 1.42 ee oe os 5919 
Kraemer on the Astronomica οἵ 
Manilius. R. Ennis . . τ 9.09 
Le Jay, Inscriptions de la Cote ‘@Or. 
F. HAvVERFIELD. . .- Royle) 
Models and Exercises “by ier and 
Bromley. J. E. INTEXONG ee te se OU 


Sargent’s Greek Iambic Verse. E. op 5, 980 
Hdien L. Webster on the Gothic 


Guttural. E.S. SHELDON. . . . 380 

Notes. 

On Clauses of ce aan C. 
HARRISON. . ΘΝ 


Plautus, Men. ABA, 594; mroeee 314, 
432,850. E.'S. πες; wae ” 381 


The Birthplace of Propertius. W. Y. 


SELLAR . . "ἐξα 0 Ὁ 
Prof. Tarbell on 1 Soph. ‘Aj. 651. G. E. 
MARINDIN. . BCS ΤΟΝ 


The Latin Aorist Subjunctive “EA. 


SoNNENSCHEIN . . SELIG HALOS ἢ 


Mr. Gladstone on Homer and the 
Assyrian Tablets. Crciu Torr. . . 399 
Apparatus Criticus to Cicero’s De Na- 


tura Deorum (contd.). P. SCHWENKE. 400 | 


Morris’s First Book of Thucydides. 


E. Οἱ MarcHant . . . 405 | 


Zacher on the Scholia of Ar istophanes. 

W. G. RUTHERFORD - . att aan ct AG 
Sternbach’s Anthology. J. W. Mackart 408 
Benoist and Thomas, Les Poésies de 


@atulless ROBINSON BinISis)., - « 40) 


Von Ponor’s Festus. H. Netriesuir . 412 
The Vienna Corpus: Weihrich’s Specu- 
lum and pence ΘΙ Priscillian. W. 


SANDAY. . es eer Sy 


Teuttel’s ratiees Al) _Eg S. Tompson 416 

Schrader and Jevons, Ἐπ An- 
tiquities. ΟἿ IGRARY i ga™ cies a ee SD 

Christ’s Gorgias of Plato. Sr. Grorce 
ΠΟ. ἌΣ a Ae A ee 


Vil 
PAG! 
Tacitus, Dial. 10, 39; Seneca, Apoc. 
9, 13. δῆς 15. ‘trent ἢ 5 ΘΝ 
ΠΕΣ Versions of a Saying a ihe 
Didaché. CC. Tayntor. . . 382 
Aristoph. Plutus 885. B. Wyyne- 
WILSON. . ΘΝ 
The Shark and the aa fal C. Torr 382 
American Philological Association 383 
A correction. R. WHITELAW 384 
Archaeology. 
Acquisitions of British Museum. C. 8. 384 
Journals 384 
Summaries of Poviedicals 385 
Bibliography 389 
OE 
Ipfelkofer on the Rhetorica ad Alexan- 
drum. H. Ricwarps . Be +, 422 
Ponickau de Isocratis Derioniedd lal, 
CrARcn es ΠΩΣ 
Godley’s Histories of “Tacitus. i F. 
Burton. . 29 
Hatfield on ΑΚ τ R. Wipers ‘ 494 
Holtzapfel’s Beitrige. HvELyN ΑΒΒΟΤῚ 424 
Notes. 
κανθήλη. W. Lorine . 424 
Eurip. Troades. A. C. Pearson 425 
Hehoed ehrases., JieSucar. 0 A25 
Thucyd. iv. 81. L. CAMPBELL 425 
Jottings on Appuleis. EE. J. 
CHINNOCK . Ae cements. <5 426 
Obituary. 
Professor Allen. C. L. Smitu . 426 
Professor Sellar. Lewis CAMPBELL . 428 
Archaeology. 
Ancient Athens by Mrs. Verrall and 
Miss Harrison. F. B. TarBett . 43 
Acquisitions of the British Museum . 452 
Journals ; 3 . 434 
Summaries of ΤῈ σα ρας . 435 
Bibliography . 438 


vill 


No. 


PAGE 
The Bodleian Facsimiles of the Hercu- 
lanean Latin Papyri. W.M. Linpsay 441 
Bugge and Bréal on the Latin Element 
in Teutonic Mythology and ἐν ὦ 


H. L. ΝΈΒΒΤΕΚΒ . 445 
Gorgias, Encomium Helene. ᾽ν. R. 

Paton aoe Nahe: Sr EO 
Studies in Caesar. “Tite oo) τὶ τη τὰ . 448 


Lucretius, V. 1350-3. Frank G. Moore 450 

Notes on Cicero’s Letters to Atticus. 
ΠΕ τοὺς 

The Greek τι ρει in "ὩΣ: iHourth 
Gospel. Jonn A. Cross . . 453 

Apparatus Criticus to Cicero’s De Natura 
Deorum (contd.). P. ScHwenke . . 454 

Blaydes’ Edition of the Nubes. W. W. 
Merrny™ . ᾿ 2457 

Two Notices of Tewotts Republic of 
ΡΟ. τ - 

Trautwein on ‘ihe Py ologues of Εν 
E. A. SONNENSCHEIN . . . 462 

Papillon and Haigh’s Aeneid, Books if — 


. 451 


. 460 


Wiles eR PAGE. : . 463 
New Edition of Piderit’s ine @ratore. 
A. S. WILKINS . . 466 


Bieger on the Codex Pithoeanus “of 
Persius. G. R.Scort . : . 407 
Cowan’s Edition of Pillay: 5 1 1 Ὸ 


Tracy PEcK . . 468 
Thackeray’s Translations — from Pru 
dentius. J. H. Lupron . . 470 


THE CLASSICAL 


REVIEW. 


0: 


PAGE 
Batiffol’s Studia Patristica. A. RopErt- 
SON” ane, . 472 
King and Woolson: 5 Compar eine Grose 
Cane EK. H. M. 
Richardson’s Aeschines ‘against ἘΞ 
phon. ΤΠ: Gs... «ease 
Bénard, L’Esthétique d’Aristote. lal 
Rrewarns . : : BE 
Hoskier, A. Grea Carne oder AS 
PLUMMER. . Ἐν: 1 7.9 
Two Essays on Sicilian History. W. 


Ruys Roperts . : ie LS 
Ruggiero, Dizionario Epigraphica. F. 
HAVERFIELD . . 479 
Russell’s Translations into Greek and 
Latin Verse. E. D.S. . 479 
Notes. 
Prof. Hogue and E. C. Marchant on 
Greek Irregular Verbs 1179 
Plato, Republic 532. P. SuHorry . . 480 


The Agesias of Pindar. J. B. Bury 480 


Thucyd. 1. 11. E.C. Marcnant . . 481 
Arist. Eth. i. 1.. 8S. E. Wingoit . 481 
Catullus, lxvi. and Ixvi. P. Srupson 481 
A Correction. Ey. ABBoTT . 482 
Archaeology. 
Notes on Vases. H. A. Tupps. . . 482 
Mirabilia. C. Torr . 483 
Journals . 483 
Summaries . 485 
Bibliography . 486 


The Classical Review 


FEBRUARY 1890. 


THE SIEGE OF PLATAEA. 


Tue publication of Prof. Paley’s essay 
‘On certain engineering difficulties in Thu- 
cydides’ account of the escape from Plataea’ 
in vol. x. of the Journal of Philology may 
be said to have been the beginning of many 
evils for the Greeks and the barbarians also ; 
that is, for Thucydides and his modern read- 
ers. It was, for instance, the immediate 
cause of the remarkable paper by Miiller- 
Striibing in the Neue Jahrbiicher, 1885, p. 
289, in which he proves, to the confusion of 
all historians past, present, and to come, that 
the work of Thucydides is neither more nor 
less than a ‘military-didactic epic.’ 

To review in detail all that has been 
written on the siege of Plataea, as described 
by Thucydides, would be a work almost as 
immense as the building of the siege wall ; 
but it is possible, within brief limits, to 
discuss a few of the difficulties raised by 
Paley and those who have followed him. 

And first it is worth while to state very 
prominently a fact which Paley has not 
brought sufficiently into the foreground. 
The entire narrative of Thucydides demands 
that we should think of the city of Plataea, 
whatever its size may have been, as sur- 
rounded at least in part by a belt of soft 
earth of some depth. Without this, there 
would have been no fruit-trees to cut down 
and form into a barricade; without this, there 
could have been no mound of earth, rising as 
high as the city wall ; without this, the Pla- 
taeans could not have dug amine under their 
own walls, in order to remove the soil from 
the mound outside. Out of this earth, no 
doubt, the bricks were dug, which were used 
in building the siege wall, and the spaces left 
by the removal of the earth were of course 

NO. XXX. VOL. IV. 


the trenches by each side of the wall, as 
was also the case in the long walls connecting 
Megara and Nisaea.1 

Among the strongest objections raised 
against the truth of the account given by 
Thucydides of the famous siege are (1) the 
size of the siege wall: and (2) the small 
number of men left behind to guard the city. 
These were 480 in number.? 

Of the size of the wall, however, we know 
nothing. That depends entirely on the size 
of the city, which is equally unknown. That 
the existing ruins of the city walls, which 
are about 24 miles long, are not to be taken 
into calculation is obvious. Not only did 
the Thebans raze the town entirely to the 
ground in 425, but, when it had subsequently 
been rebuilt, it was again pulled down in 
374. But even if we allow a circuit of 
4,000 yards for the siege wall, is the work 
so impossible as Paley would have us 
believe? Apparently half (or more) of 
the Peloponnesian army were left behind 
for the woxk; and this half would perhaps 
amount to 20,000 men. ‘These, spread 
over 4,000 yards, would give 50 men 
for every ten yards of wall. Could not 50 
men, in about three months, build ten yards 

1 Whether such a belt exists now, can of course 
easily be ascertained. If it does not, we may 
still believe that it existed in the fifth century B.c. 
Years of desolation—not to mention the débris of a 
ruined city—must have wrought some change on the 
surface of the district. 

2 Miiller-Striibing refuses to avail himself of this 
argument because the Spartans had forbidden the 
taking of Plataea by storm, and the defenders had 
merely to sit still! (1. ὁ. p. 804). But this fact also 
has no better authority than Thucydides, and there- 
fore should have no weight with M.-Str. Duncker 
urges it strongly. 

B 


2 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


of such a wall as Thucydides describes, as- 
suming a height of 15—20 feet? In a 
very short time, between the ‘autumn 4 
of 428 and ‘the beginning of winter,’ the 
Athenians built a wall round Mitylene ; it 
was a single wall, it is true, but it was fur- 
nished with forts in some strong places, and 
effectually shut up the city on the land side. 
Taking into consideration the difference of 
the numbers, the greater size of Mitylene, 
and the shorter space of time, this wall in 
Lesbos seems to imply quite as much 
activity as the wall round Plataea. At 
Pylos the wall was built in six days.! 

On the size of the city also depends the 
question whether 480 men were or were not 
sufficient for the defence of Plataea. Those 
who assume a city as extensive as the present 
ruins (though Thucydides says it was οὐ pe 
yaAnv) assert that 480 men were not enough 
to guard it. But we have just as much 
right, or more, to assume that 480 men were 
thought enough—just enough, no doubt, for 
economy’s sake, for the wall they had to 
defend; in other words the city was not 
larger than 480 men could defend. The 
whole fighting force of Plataea in 479 B.c. 
was 600 men. Unless the fighting force of 
the town was altogether out of proportion 
to the size of the city, the walls were not 
larger than 480 men could maintain. Other- 
wise the army was quite inadequate to take 
any action in the field, if men were required 
to guard the walls at home, and when we are 
told that 480 men could not have resisted 
the forces brought against them, we may 
remember that the little fortress of Oenoe 
successfully resisted the whole Peloponnesian 
army. It may be added that in Paley’s view 
the number of men left behind is a proof of 
the large size of the city. He assumes a 
population of 10,000—whether on the basis 
of the 400 Plataeans (80 were Athenians) 
now left behind, or on the basis of the 1,000 
Plataeans who fought at Marathon, is not 
clear. If the former, the proportion of 
population to fighting men is large; if the 
latter, we must remember that Plataea was 
destroyed by the Persians in 480. 

The plastering of the inner surface of the 
the siege wall is thought to bea difficulty. 
Where did all the mortar come from ? asks 
Paley. Where, we might ask, did the mor- 
tar come from for building the two and a half 


1 The Athenians had 40. ships at Mitylene, and 1,000 
hoplites under Paches: 7.6. about 9,000 men, and 
they had to blockade the city by sea, while building 
the wall (Thue. iii. 2, 18). The siege works at Nisaea 
occupied a day and a half (Thue. iv. 69), at Delium 
about three days (iv. 90). 


miles of wall of which the ruins still exist 
at Plataea (unless the walls were built 
without mortar)? It came from the same 
source as the stone of which the city walls 
were built. Where there is lime, there is no 
difficulty about mortar ; and where there is 
lime-stone, there is no difficulty about lime. 
The bricks of the siege walls were, no doubt, 
exceedingly soft (Thucydides says that 
Plataeans ‘pushed down the battlements’), 
and needed protection on the side toward 
the city—and, after all, the mortar was 
perhaps little more than mud. At Pylos 
there seems to have been no lack of the 
material ! 

Another ‘crux’ is found in the fact that 
when the Plataeans crossed the siege wall 
in their escape they found water in the 
outer ditch of the wall and none in 
the inner. This, it is thought, is an over- 
sight on the part of Thucydides. Hither 
there was water in both ditches or in 
neither. Why so? The water streaming 
down Cithaeron would quickly fall into the 
outer ditch, but it could not penetrate into 
the inner ditch. Onthe other hand the area 
within the siege wall, between it and the 
city wall, would not be large enough to 
collect much water. Under such circum- 
stances there would always be less water in 
the inner ditch than in the outer. 

Once more, Paley points out that the 
besiegers in their wall were really in more 
danger than the besieged. They were in a 
position where they could be attacked on 
the outside by the Athenians and on the. 
inside by the Plataeans. No doubt: they 
might have been attacked in this manner, 
if (1) the Athenians had not made up their 
minds that they would not take the field 
with an army against the Peloponnesians : (2) 
and if Thebes had not been much nearer 
Plataea than Athens was. As a fact they 
were not attacked. The protracted siege and 
final fall of Plataea made it clear to all the 
Grecian world that the Athenians dare not 
meet their old enemies in the field. From 
this point of view (though they had other 
reasons for desiring to take dire vengeance 
on the Plataeans) the Thebans were quite 
right, as a matter of policy, in urging the 
siege upon the Peloponnesians. 

In this way the ‘impossibilities’ and difficul- 
ties of the siege seem to diminish on a closer 
examination. But no scrutiny can help us 
out of the difficulties which are raised by 
the recent theories: that Thucydides is 
describing an ideal or pattern siege (Miiller- 
Striibing), or confounding the city wall with 
the siege wall (Paley). Can we suppose that 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 3 


Thucydides, writing as a historian of a 
city on the borders of Attica, a city well 
known before its ruin to many of his readers, 
and occupied for a year after its fall by Mega- 
rians aud others—a city too of which some 
of the heroic defenders lived at Athens—suc- 
ceeded in palming off on his contemporaries a 
fictitious account of the siege? Or that he 
failed to distinguish between the city wall 
and the siege wall which surrounded it—a 


mistake which hundreds could have cor- 
rected? Would no ancient author have 
pointed out the absurdity of his account, if 
it were as absurd as we are asked to 
believe? Is his history worth a moment’s 
consideration, 7f he could not ascertain and 
tell the truth about a siege on the borders 
of Attica, in which every Athenian was 
interested 2 
EVELYN ABBOTT. 


THE AGAMEMNON OF AESCHYLUS. 


An ADDENDUM. 


In a recent edition of the Agamemnon I 
endeavoured to show that there is error in 
the current hypothesis as to the story upon 
which the drama is founded, and also conse- 
quential error as to the dramatis personae 
and the distribution of the parts. By over- 
sight and forgetfulness I omitted a piece of 
evidence which will, I believe, seem to many 
more weighty than any that I have actually 
adduced. I desire to bring it forward with- 
out delay, and have obtained the kind per- 
mission of the editor to do this in the 
Classical Review. 

My criticism related (1) to the story, and 
(2) to the dramatis personae. It is import- 
ant to bear in mind both the distinction and 
the interdependence of these two matters. 
The supposed story has for it the authority, 
whatever that may be worth, of the Greek 
hypothesis found in the MSS. The dramatis 
personae and distribution of the parts, which 
are given in our printed books, have not the 
authority of the MSS., nor any authority 
from tradition at all. They have been in- 
vented in modern times, indeed quite re- 
cently, and introduced in defiance of the 
MSS., in order to bring the text and the 
interpretation of the text, so far as might 
be, into tolerable conformity with the story 
supposed. This I have explained in my book. 
But when the book was printed and published 
I did not know, or rather had forgotten, that 
the modern cast of the play, as now com- 
monly printed, conflicts not only with the 
MSS. of Aeschylus (which in such a matter 
would be little), but with other testimony far 
older and better, testimony indeed of the 
very best and strongest kind which we have 
on any subject connected with the ancient 
theatre. If we are to be ruled in this matter 
by tradition at all (which I do not assert or 
necessarily admit), we should at least prefer 


the tradition of the second century to the 
tradition of the eleventh. 

The principal representative of ancient 
scholarship in relation to Greek drama is of 
course Pollux. Writing in the full daylight 
of Graeco-Roman learning, he is a very dif- 
ferent witness from the anonymous Byzan- 
tine revisers of the Codex Mediceus. It 
happens that we have from Pollux a note on 
the dramatis personae of the Agamemnon, 
which, though it deals directly only with a 
detail, presupposes and necessarily implies a 
certain view of the whole play. The passage 
runs as follows (Poll. iv. 109): ὅπότε μὴν ἀντὶ 
τετάρτου ὑποκριτοῦ δέοι τινὰ τῶν χορευτῶν εἰπεῖν 
ἐν ὠδῇ, παρασκήνιον καλεῖται τὸ πρᾶγμα, Os ἐν 
᾿Αγαμέμνονι Αἰσχύλου: εἰ δὲ τέταρτος ὑποκριτής 
τι παραφθέγξαιτο, τοῦτο παραχορήγημα ὀνομάζε- 
Tal, καὶ πεπρᾶχθαί φασιν αὐτὸ ἐν Μέμνονι 
Αἰσχύλου. ‘But whenever it was necessary 
that, in the place of a fourth actor, one of 
the chorus-performers should speak in lyric, 
this is called a παρασκήνιον : see for example 
the Agamemnon of Aeschylus. If there were 
something incidentally spoken by a fourth 
actor, this is termed a παραχορήγημα : and it 
is said to have occurred in the MJemnon of 
Aeschylus.’ 

The meaning of this is clear and undis- 
puted. For the performance of a play there 
were commonly provided, in addition to the 
regular chorus, three actors trained for 
spoken parts. As a very general rule this 
number was the limit, and the plays were so 
written that not more than three persons 
(besides the choreutae), having parts to speak, 
should be before the audience at the same 
time. Pollux is here treating of the rare 
exceptions to this rule. He divides them 
into two kinds. The ordinary function of 
the three ὑποκριταί was to deliver the dia- 
logue. The most natural conception there- 

B2 


4 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


fore of a ‘fourth actor’ would be a person 
speaking in or dinary dialogue (ev λόγῳ) in a 
scene in which all the three regular ὑποκριταί 
were already occupied. Of this however, 
which is the case put second by Pollux, he 
seems not to have known by his own obser- 
vation a single instance. ‘It is said’, he 
writes, ‘to have occurred in the Memnon of 
Aeschylus,’ which play he had plainly not 
read. His care in marking that he is here 
speaking at second hand is “worthy of notice, 
and enhances the authority of what he states 
without such a limitation. The other, the 
first-mentioned exception, is of a very pecu- 
liar kind. It is where, in a scene requiring 
the simultaneous presence of the three 
regular actors, there is found another speaker 
who, being a choreutes and speaking in lyric, 
is not exactly a ‘fourth actor’, but, as Pollux 
words it, ‘in the place of a fourth actor.’ 
For this he refers, as if the case were plain 
and notorious, to the Agamemnon. 

It will be seen on reflexion that there is 
a little difficulty in understanding the nature 
of this peculiar case. This ‘quasi-actor’, 
says Pollux, is ‘one of the choreutae. Why 
then, it might be asked, should not his part 
be delivered by the ordinary chorus-leader 4 
And why, since the choreutae for the purpose 
of this rule never counted in the number of 
the ‘actors’ at all, should this case be re- 
garded as exceptional or noticeable in any 
way? Weshall see the reason presently. 

We are not here concerned with the ques- 
tion how far the technical terms παρασκήνιον 
and παραχορήγημα, as here used, were either 
correct in themselves or generally recognized. 
As Pollux uses them they are in a way cor- 
relative, the chorus in the first place supply- 
ing something extra to the stage, the fourth 
actor in the second case being a sort of 
addition to the chorus.' We however are 
concerned only with the facts to which the 
terms are applied. 

In order to show the bearing of this testi- 
mony on the question discussed in my book, I 
will now set out (1) the dramatis personae and 
distribution of the Agamemnon, as commonly 
printed ; (2) the dramatis personae and dis- 
tribution according to my edition. Those of 
the MSS. it is scarcely worth while to dis- 
cuss. Nobody defends or is likely to defend 
them. 

As commonly printed : 


Dramatis personae. 


A. Watchman. 


1 For a comparison of the various uses of these 
terms, see Mr. Haigh, The Attic Theatre, note on p. 
212, by which note my attention was called to the 
passage. 


Chorus of Elders. 

Clytaemnestra. 

A Herald. 

Agamemnon. 

Cassandra. 

Aegisthus, 
These characters are distributed in the 

play as follows : 

1. Prologue. Watchman. 


2. Parodos and 


Saal. \ Chorus. 
3. Bpisode 1. Clytaemnestra. 
Chorus. 
4, Stas. 2. Chorus. 
j Herald. 
5. Episode 2. Clytaemnestra. 
ἰ Chorus. 
6. Stas. 3. Chorus. 
( Agamemnon. 
7. Episode 3. - Clytaemnestra. 
I Cassandra (silent). 
8. Stas. 4. Chorus. 
f Clytaemnestra. 
9. Episode 4. Cassandra. 
{ Chorus. 


10. Interlude Agamemnon (behind 


(1331—1371 the scenes). 
Dindorf.) Chorus. 
: Clytaemnestra. 
[π᾿ 
11. Episode ᾿ 4 Aegisthus. 
and Finale. mo 
( Chorus. 


It will be seen that there is here not the 
least trace of the ‘fourth actor’ found in the 
play by Pollux, Indeed it can scarcely be 
said that the play absolutely requires three. 
Very little ingenuity, certainly not more 
than the ancients employed, as we are told, 
to preserve their limitations in other places, 
would be required to enable the mute 
Cassandra of Episode 3 and the speaking 
Cassandra of Episode 4 to be taken by differ- 
ent maskers ; and except at this point two 
actors, with the chorus, could easily perform 
the whole. 

I will now set out the arrangements as in 
my recent edition. 


Dramatis Personae. 


A Watchman. 

Chorus of Elders. 
Clytaemnestra. 

A Conspirator, leading the 
Chorus of Conspirators. 

A Herald. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 5 


Agamemnon. 
Cassandra. 

Aegisthus. 

A Soldier of Aegisthus. 


By these the different portions of the 
play are spoken or sung as follows: 


1. Prologue. Watchman. 


2. Parodos and | 


ines Chorus of Elders. 


Clytaemnestra. 
Conspirator. 

Chorus of Elders. 
Chorusof Conspirators 


3. Episode 1. 


4, Stas. 2. Chorus of Elders. 
Conspirator. 
: Herald. 
5. Episode 2. Clytaemnestra. 


{ 


Chorus of Elders. 


6. Stas. 3. Chorus of Elders. 
Agamemnon. 

7. Episode 3. Clytaemnestra. 
Cassandra (silent). 


8. Stas. 4. Chorus of Elders. 
Clytaemnestra. 
9. Episode 4. Cassandra. 


Chorus of Elders. 


Agamemnon (behind 
the scenes). 


Chorus of Elders. 


Clytaemnestra. 
Conspirator, 
Aegisthus. 
Soldier. 

Chorus of Elders. 


Now if this was the arrangement known 
- to Pollux, we can not only see at once the 
application of his remark, but can explain 
it with precision down to the minutest 
peculiarity. The greater part of the play, 
all but the last scene, can be performed by 
the regular three actors. But in the last 
scene there is a small fourth part, which 
answers exactly to the description of the 
ancient scholar. The scene consists of two 
sections, (1) a dialogue, partly iambic but 
chiefly lyric, conducted mainly by Clytaem- 
nestra and the Coryphaeus (1371—1576), 
and (2) the finale, in iambic and trochaic, 
mainly conducted by Aegisthus, Clytaem- 
nestra, and the Coryphaeus. These two 
sections however are perfectly continuous. 
There is no interval between them, and no 
legitimate opportunity for an exit. But 


Ὁ ΄“-}οεο--- 


10. Interlude. 


11. Episode ὅ } 
and Finale. | 


from the evidence of the text it appeared 
to me that in the finale one of the soldiers 
accompanying Aegisthus must have spoken 
twice, on each occasion one trochaic verse 
(1650 and 1653), and also that in the pre- 
ceding lyric dialogue, at 1522 (1521 Din- 
dorf), the words, 


οὔτ᾽ ἀνελεύθερον οἶμαι θάνατον 
τῷδε γενέσθαι, --- 


which are usually struck out as inexplicable, 
must have been spoken by a partizan of 
Clytaemnestra, that is to say, by the 
Conspirator. I did not observe, what I 
ought no doubt to have observed, that, as it 
would be quite unnatural for the performer 
here taking the person of the Conspirator to 
leave the stage before the entrance of 
Aegisthus and his troop, I had thus made, 
to this small extent, a demand for a fourth 
actor. But all the more striking, I think, is 
the undesigned coincidence between my in- 
dependent inference and the statement of 
Pollux. 

For observe: the various parts were com- 
monly assumed to be distributed among the 
actors in the order of their importance. In 
the Agamemnon the protagonist would of 
course play Clytaemnestra in the last scene 
as throughout. The deuteragonist would 
take Aegisthus. Of the two remaining 
parts, the: Soldier, not the Conspirator, 
would be given to the regular tritagonist, 
as having two speeches to make instead of 
only one, and also as requiring much more 
impressive action. We should therefore 
naturally hold, as Pollux and his authorities 
held, that the speech of the Conspirator 
(1522—1523) must be regarded as the ex- 
ceptional fourth part. It is in lyric metre 
(anapaests), not in the iambic of the ordinary 
dialogue ; and so it is described by Pollux. 
And, most remarkable of all, it is spoken 
by a person whose ambiguous character, 
between choreutes and actor, makes the 
peculiar language of his description quite 
simple and natural. The Conspirator is in 
a sense ‘one of the choreutae.’ He stands 
to the secondary chorus in much the same 
relation in which the regular Coryphaeus 
stands to the regular chorus ; and in fact in 
my edition I have, upon this analogy, marked 
his parts (as well as the one song of the 
sub-chorus) by the sign XO. f. On the 
other hand he is no member of the regular 
chorus but, in the common technical sense, 
a ὑποκριτής. When therefore, as at this 
place, he recites anapaests in a scene other- 
wise requiring the simultaneous presence of 
three speakers (in addition to the regular 


6 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


chorus), he is what Pollux calls him, ‘one of 
the choreutae speaking in lyric in the place 
of a fourth actor.’ 

I cannot but think that this absolute 
agreement between an inference drawn from 
MSS. of the fourteenth century and a state- 
ment dating from the second not only sub- 
stantiates the inference, but also strongly 
fortifies the authority of our traditional 
text. The makers of our MSS. had, it is 
needless to say, not a notion of illustrating 
the observation of Pollux. The words to 
which his note refers are in the MSS. tacked, 
in defiance of grammar, to the following 
speech of Clytaemnestra, while in modern 
texts, as I have already said, they are 
desperately struck out. Yet there they 
stand in the Codex Florentinus, as they must 
have stood in the Aeschylus of Pollux, having 
survived the copyists of more than a mil- 
lennium, to illustrate and justify the true 
tradition. Could there possibly be a fact 
more encouraging to the study of those ma- 
terials from which our knowledge of Greek 
drama has been and is being built up ? 

What, it may be asked, have we done 
with the testimony of Pollux so long as we 
have endeavoured to distribute the Aga- 
memnon so as to accord with the Byzantine 
story? It has been simply set aside, upon 
one of those transparent pretexts which we 
all employ when we are at a loss for argu- 
ments. The copyist of Pollux, it is said, 
introduced the reference to the Agamemnon 


by error, because a few lines after came a 
reference, quite differently worded, to the 
Memnon. There is no one who will not 
gladly be relieved of the supposed necessity 
for such a hypothesis as this. 

In conclusion I should like to call atten- 
tion to the curious and unimpeachable 
evidence of the difliculties besetting the 
common distribution of the Agamemnon, 
which is furnished by the version of Fitz- 
gerald. In the course of accommodating 
the earlier scenes of the play to a story and 
cast of characters for which they were never 
intended, it has been necessary, among other 
things, to assign to the same speaker two 
contradictory and irreconcilable speeches 
(817—319 and 351—354 Dindorf). We 
commentators, being compelled to preserve 
the whole, have pushed through the place as 
we could. But Fitzgerald did not so bind 
himself ; and what does he do? He tacitly 
remodels the scene, fusing, modifying, and 
omitting, so that the contradiction wholly 
disappears. The significance of this is the 
greater, in that Mr. Fitzgerald was defending 
no theory and indeed had probably not the 
least idea that what he so calmly set aside 
was not the genuine arrangement of Aeschy- 
lus. But he saw, being free to see, that, 
Aeschylus or not, it was intolerable to his 
understanding: and he dealt with it ac- 
cordingly. 

A. W. VERRALL. 


TABLE OF AFFINITY IN PLATO’S REPUBLIC. 


In the Republic 459 E foll. Plato gives us 
the arrangements which are to take the 
place of marriage in his state. On certain 
festival days men and women covertly 
chosen by the guardians, though seemingly 
selected by lot, are to be joined in a union 
not lasting longer than the festivals them- 
selves. There will not be more unions than 
are sufficient, taking one thing with another, 
to maintain the number of the male popula- 
tion; but nothing is said at first about 
prohibiting unions between near relations. 
The children are to be taken from their 
mothers and so brought up by the state that 
relationship to particular parents shall re- 
main unknown. No child will know its 
parents, no parents their children. Men 
are to be eligible for these regular and legal 
unions between the ages of 25 and δῦ, 
women between 20 and 40. When they 


have passed these ages and ceased ‘ bearing 
children to the state’ (τίκτειν τῇ πόλει or 
γεννᾶν τῇ πόλει), they are to be at liberty to 
form irregular unions, any possible offspring 
of which is to be suppressed. 

It is at this point that restrictions on the 
ground of relationship are first mentioned. 
A man, it is said, may form one of these 
irregular unions with any woman he pleases 
except daughter, granddaughter, mother 
and grandmother: and a woman with any 
man she pleases, not being son, grandson, 
father or grandfather.!_ Brothers and sisters 
are not mentioned in this particular sen- 


1 Plato says daughter, daughter’s daughter, mother 
and mother’s mother, and then again son, son’s son, 
father and father’s father. But these make up 
among them all grandchildren and grandparents ; ¢.g. 
if a woman cannot marry her father’s father, a man 
cannot marry his son’s daughter. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 7 


tence, where the forbidden degrees are first 
given. 

Hereupon Glaucon naturally asks how, 
considering the arrangements made, father 
and daughter, mother and son are to be 
known. Socrates answers that all the 
children born in the tenth or seventh month 
after one of the festivals are to count as 
children of all the men and women who 
took part in the regular unions on that 
occasion, and that relationship in the second 
generation will follow accordingly. He 
then proceeds to detine brother and sister, 
who have not hitherto been mentioned, 
as τὰ ἐν ἐκείνῳ TO χρόνῳ γεγονότα (ἔκγονα) ἐν 
ᾧ αἱ μητέρες καὶ ol πατέρες αὐτῶν ἐγέννων. It 
seems to me that these words are usually 
mistranslated, and in any case they give rise 
to great difficulty. 

They are commonly taken to mean that 
a man’s sister will be any woman born 
about the same time as himself, that is, 
within a certain time of a certain festival. 
But a pupil of mine has pointed out to me, 
what is certainly true, that under the 
arrangements above stated children born 
about the same time are exactly those who, 
except in the case of twins, could not be 
brothers or sisters. At the festival one 
man was united to one woman and the 
children born must be children of different 
fathers and different mothers. If therefore 
it was with a view to the prevention of real 
incest that Plato defined relationships and 
prohibited unions, he was not likely to 
prohibit them to persons who could not be 
relations and permit them to persons who 


could. He would be granting full liberty 
of incest while hindering an _ innocent 
union. 


If however we look again at the Greek, 
we shall see that this was not Plato’s mean- 
ing. The use of the imperfect tense ἐγέννων 
and the absence of αὐτούς after it show 
clearly that the words mean not ‘the time 
at which their parents brought them into 
the world,’ which would be ἐγέννησαν αὐτούς, 
but ‘the time within which their parents 
were having children,’ γεννᾶν being used in 
the same sense in which it has been used 
two or three times before in this and the 
previous page. It refers therefore to the 
whole time of life during which father 
and mother were allowed, if the lot fell upon 
them, to take part in the regular unions ; 
and brothers and sisters will be all persons 
born, roughly speaking, within thirty years 
of one another, that being the period of 
time during which a man might be having 
children as the issue of regular unions, so 


that a man and a woman born within that 
period might possibly both have him for 
father. This meaning is also clearly con- 
veyed by a passage in the Zimaeus (18 D), 
in which the arrangements of the Kepublic are 
mentioned : νομιοῦσι δὲ πάντες πάντας αὐτοὺς 
ὁμογενεῖς, ἀδελφὰς μὲν καὶ ἀδελφοὺς ὅσοιπερ ἂν 
τῆς πρεπούσης ἐντὸς ἡλικίας γίγνωνται, τοὺς δ᾽ 
ἔμπροσθεν κ,τ.λ., Where ἡλικία naturally refers 
to a considerable period of life, not to a few 
weeks. 

But if it was Plato’s intention under 
ordinary circumstances to forbid all unions 
between brothers and sisters thus defined, 
he would thus have rendered all unions 
whatever practically impossible. Under the 
various conditions of age now stated a man 
could not be united with any woman who 
was older or younger than himself by less 
than thirty years because she might be his 
sister, nor with one thirty years younger 
than himself because she might be his 
daughter ; while a woman thirty years older 
than himself might be his mother, and would 
also be beyond the legal age for a regular 
union. 

But this cannot have been Plato’s mean- 
ing. After the definitions of relationship, 
he adds, in 461 EH, ὥστε ὃ νῦν δὴ ἐλέγομεν, 
ἀλλήλων μὴ ἅπτεσθαι: ἀδελφοὺς δὲ καὶ ἀδελῴας 
δώσει ὃ νόμος συνοικεῖν ἐὰν ὃ κλῆρος ταύτῃ 
συμπίπτῃ Kat ἡ Πυθία προσαναιρῇ. I under- 
stand the words ὥστε... ἅπτεσθαι to refer to 
the irregular unions which were the last men- 
tioned. Although: in 461C brothers and 
sisters are curiously omitted from the list 
of persons forbidden to form irregular 
unions, we seem obliged by these words to 
include them ; and Plato would seem ab- 
solutely to forbid irregular unions between 
persons who may possibly be near relations. 
With regular unions the case is different. 
‘Brothers and sisters,’ he says, ‘the law 
will allow to be united, if the lot so fall, 
and if the Pythian priestess also sanction 
it by oracle.’ In these words brothers and 
sisters seem to be distinguished from parents 
and children (whose union would indeed 
also be prevented by the limits of age laid 
down), and the reference to the law and the 
lot show that the regular unions only are 
here intended. It is strange that Plato 
should say ‘7 the lot so fall,’ because it 
could not fall otherwise, possible brothers 
and sisters being the only persons eligible 
for these unions, as all other adults would 
be possible parents and children. As to 
the sanction of the oracle, we can hardly 
suppose that it was to be obtained separately 
for each particular couple after the lots had 


ὃ THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


been cast, although the order of the clauses 
and the πρός in προσαναιρῇ would render this 
the natural meaning. ‘The oracle would 
have to sanction these unions once for all. 
But perhaps Plato had not fully seen in 
detail all the consequences of his own legis- 
lation, and meant the ἔαν «.7.A. in its natural 
sense. We may notice that, if the oracle 
refused to sanction such unions, no unions 
at all could take place. 


No doubt there are some difficulties in 
this interpretation of Plato’s arrangements, 
but there can be no doubt as to the real 
meaning of the words in which brothers 
and sisters are defined, and Plato would 
seem not to have thought out all the con- 
sequences that would or might ensue. 


Herevert RICHARDS. 


CONJECTURAL EMENDATIONS IN THE UEDEA. 


δεινὰ τυράννων λήματα Kal πως 
ὀλίγ᾽ ἀρχόμενοι, πολλὰ κρατοῦντες, 
χαλεπῶς ὀργὰς μεταβάλλουσιν. 

τὸ γὰρ εἰθίσθαι ζῆν ἐπ᾿ ἴσοισιν 
κρεῖσσον" ἐμοὶ γοῦν εἰ μὴ μεγάλως 
ὀχυρῶς τ᾽ εἴη καταγηράσκειν. 

τῶν γὰρ μετρίων πρῶτα μὲν εἰπεῖν 
τοὔνομα νικᾷ, χρῆσθαί τε μακρῷ 
λῷστα βροτοῖσιν" τὰ δ᾽ ὑπερβάλλοντ᾽ 
οὐδένα καιρὸν δύναται θνητοῖς, 
μείζους δ᾽ ἄτας, ὅταν ὀργίσθῃ 

190. δαίμων οἴκοις, ἀπέδωκεν. 

Here is nothing to arrest us till we come 
to the 7’ of v. 124; but this annihilates all 
sense and construction in the sentence where 
it occurs, and is therefore amended tu γ᾽ or δ᾽, 
or, simpler still, discarded: the scribe who 
inserted it supposed no doubt that he was 
smoothing away an asyndeton. The words 
now left possess a meaning, but it is 
wrong. These verses set forth what the 
Greeks were never tired of hearing—the 
praise of the golden mean in disparage: 
ment of a high estate; and it flatly con- 
tradicts their tenour to say in the midst 
of them be it mine to grow old in security if 
not in grandeur, for this makes grandeur the 
prime object of desire and security the 
second. Mr. Th. Barthold corrects ἐπὶ μὴ 
μεγάλοις, on modest means : the recent editors 
accept this, so I pass to the next sentence. 

χρῆσθαί re λῷστα ἴον αὐτά τε χρῆσθαι λῷστά 
ἐστιν I will call by no worse name than 
clumsy ; but the expression overgreatness is 
tantamount to no profit for mortals 18 so 
strange in itself that Nauck, Prinz, Verrall, 
and now Wecklein agree to think v. 128 
corrupt ; and external witness is still more 
damaging. Mr. Verrall has already called 
attention to an obscure scholion which I 
present in this amended form: τὰ 0’ ὑπερ- 
βάλλοντ᾽] αἱ δ᾽ ὑπερβολαὶ, φησὶν, ἀσθενεῖς 
καὶ οὐ βέβαιοι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τραχείᾳ (ita 


ΒΟΡΙΡΒΙ, τῇ ἀρχαίᾳ MSS.) μεταβολῇ (ἰ.6. ὅταν 
ὀργίσθη δαίμων ν. 129). This note, correct it 
as I do or leave it as it was, is no comment 
on our text: the text on which it is a com- 
ment I should say with some confidence was 
this: 


τὰ δ᾽ ὑπερβάλλοντ᾽ ἄρρωστα βροτοῖς. 


Remember that in any fairly ancient MS. 
ἄρρωστα would be spelt dpwora, and that the 
scribes omit iota subscript as often as they 
insert it—indeed it is not recorded whether 
the MSS. have Adora or Adora here: we then 
see that the change of ὑπερβάλλοντ᾽ ἄρρωστα 
to ὑπερβάλλοντα λῷστα is merely A for p, an 
early and frequent error ; and λῷστα βροτοῖσιν 
τὰ δ᾽ ὑπερβάλλοντ᾽ is a transposition in aid of 
the metre. For the sense of the corrected 
verse compare frag. 80 βροτοῖς τὰ μείζω τῶν 
μέσων τίκτει νόσους. I take this opportunity 
of saying that in Soph. £7. 1070 sq. ὅτι σφιν 
ἤδη τὰ μὲν ἐκ δόμων | νοσεῖ, TA δὲ πρὸς τέκνων 
x.t.X., Where the editors alter νοσεῖ to νοσεῖται 
or voceve Or νοσεῖ δή OY νοσώδη OY ὀνοστά, and 
then infer from these corrections of theirs 
that the antistrophic οἰωνούς is a bacchius, I 
suspect ἀρρωστεῖ or some such word was the 
original and voce? a gloss. j 

It will be convenient to consider v. 128 
next. Mr. Verrall observing that one MS. 
gives βροτοῖς for θνητοῖς has suggested that 
δύναται. βροτοῖς is the remains of an explana- 
tory supplement trimmed into measure by 
the alteration θνητοῖς. I think it now ap- 
pears that v. 128 is not Euripides at all, but 
contains a duplicate of the scholion quoted 
above explaining v. 127. The annotator can 
hardly have written it as it stands, and its 
original form I do not undertake to restore, 
but I guess it to be a blend of two glosses : 
(1) οὐδὲν δύναται βροτοῖς or θνητοῖς, an inter- 
pretation of ἄρρωστα βροτοῖς : (2) καιρόν, a 
supplement to ὑπερβάλλοντα conveying the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 9 


correct information that ὑπερβάλλειν means 
ὑπερβάλλειν καιρόν, to overshoot the mark: 
this phrase is found in Democritus ap. Stob. 
flor. 18, 36 ὅσοι ἀπὸ. γαστρὸς Tas ἡδονὰς 
ποιεῦνται ὑπερβεβληκότες TOV καιρόν and Plut. 
Ages. 8 ὑπερβάλλων τὸν καιρόν, and 1 daresay 
elsewhere. 

The verses 125-6 as my correction leaves 
them are translatable, or would be thought 
so if they had been thus handed down, but 
I do not defend them. It is impossible not 
to wish away the two dipodiae πρῶτα μὲν 
εἰπεῖν and χρῆσθαί τε μακρῷ : there would 
then remain the straightforward sentence 
τῶν yap μετρίων τοὔνομα νικᾷ | τὰ δ᾽ ὕὑπερ- 
βάλλοντ᾽ ἄρρωστα βροτοῖς : here I do not take 
ὄνομα to mean name, but I take τὸ τῶν μετρίων 
ὄνομα to be a periphrasis for τὰ μέτρια, as 
ὄνομ᾽ ὁμιλίας 15 for ὁμιλία in Or. 1082 and τὸ 
ὄνομα τῆς σωτηρίας for τὴν σωτηρίαν in 7.71. 
905. And I think a piece of external evi- 
dence can be adduced to show that the in- 
convenient words were not originally written 
where we find them now. 

These anapaests, especially the closing 
verses 129-30, recall a well-known passage 
of Herodotus, VII. 10, 13, ending with the 
words φιλέει yap 6 θεὸς τὰ ὑπερέχοντα πάντα 
κολούειν; and at vv. 125-6 Porson cited 
another passage of equal celebrity from the 
same historian, IIT. 80, 10, πλῆθος δὲ ἄρχον 
πρῶτα μὲν οὔνομα πάντων κάλλιστον 
ἔχει, ἐσονομ ίη ν᾿ δεύτερα δὲ, τῶν ὃ μούναρχος 
ποιέει οὐδέν. Now if in Herodotus it is 
ἰσονομία which is better than μοναρχία ‘ on 
the one hand in name and on the other in 
practice, while in Euripides it is μετριότης 
which has this advantage over ὑπερβολή, 
that in itself need not surprise us. But 
when in the neighbouring sentence we find 
ἰσονομία and μοναρχία compared by Euripides 
also, it must I think surprise us that the 
antithesis between name and practice should 
not occur there instead of here ; and trust- 
ing in Herodotus I place our two dipodiae 
after v. 122: 


ἣν Ἂς 5327 La) ΕΝ ΝΣ ς 
τὸ γὰρ εἰθίσθαι ζὴν ἐπ’ ἴσοισιν, 
πρῶτα μὲν εἰπεῖν, χρῆσθαί τε, μακρῷ 
κρεῖσσον. 


Examples οἵ πρῶτα μέν thus answered by re 
are quoted by Paley from Hipp. 996, Heracl. 
337-40, and Aesch. supp. 410: I give the 
first, ἐπίσταμαι yap πρῶτα μὲν θεοὺς σέβειν,] 
φίλοις τε χρῆσθαι μάδικεῖν πειρωμένοις. It is 
perhaps worth mentioning that Herodotus a 
few chapters further on, 85, 4, has τοιαῦτα 
ἔχω φάρμακα, and that the similar words 


τοιάδ᾽ oida φάρμακα occur in y. 718 of the 
Medea. 


Lastly I come to v. 130. Before Mr. 
Verrall editors used to punctuate ὅταν 
ὀργίσθη δαίμων, οἴκοις ἀπ. ; but as ἀποδιδόναι 
means to pay and not to inflict a penalty, 
this cannot be. Mr, Verrall therefore places 
the comma after οἴκοις, but his translation 
‘when fortune is angered with the house, that 
is, with the increase of it’ shows that οἴκοις 
wants a good deal of assistance to yield the 
required sense. J propose then to write 


μείζους δ᾽ ἄτας, ὅταν ὀργίσθῃ 
δαίμων ὄγκοις, ἀπέδωκαν. 
μ of! ? 


te. μείζους ἄτας ἀπέδωκαν ὄγκοι ὅταν δαίμων 
ὀργίσθῃ αὐτοῖς, towering fortunes pay ὦ heavier 
penalty of ruin when heaven is angered with 
them: ‘celsae grauiore casu decidunt turres.’ 
It would of course be possible, though I 
should not commend it, to retain ἀπέδωκεν 
with τὰ ὑπερβάλλοντα for its subject. The 
sense of ὄγκος is common: a good instance is 
Jrag. 506, ὦ τέκνον, ἀνθρώποισιν ἔστιν οἷς βίος] 
ὃ σμικρὸς εὐκρὰς ἐγένεθ᾽, οἷς δ᾽ ὄγκος κακόν : the 
plural however does not seem to be elsewhere 
found outside technical writers. μείζους 
ἄτας ἀπέδωκαν ὄγκοι resembles a good deal the 
last sentence of Sophocles’s Antigone, with 
its μεγάλοι λόγοι TOV ὑπεραύχων μεγάλας πληγὰς 
ἀποτείσαντες. ὄγκος and οἶκος have been con- 
founded, as was natural, in other places, for 
instance at Jon 15, γαστρὸς διήνεγκ᾽ ὄγκον 
(Brodaeus, οἶκον MSS.), where Cobet ap. 
Badham adduces Dionys. Hal. ant. Rom. 
ΠῚ. 11, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ μὲν ὑμετέρα πόλις ἀπὸ μείζονος 
αὐχήματος ἀρχομένη εἰς ἐλάττονα ὄγκον (οἶκον 
MS.) συνῆκται. Aesch. Ag. 961 should be 
read thus: ἔστιν θάλασσα, τίς δέ vw κατα- 
σβέσει; | τρέφουσα πολλῆς πορφύρας ἰσάργυρον] 
κηκῖδα. παγκαίνιστον, εἱμάτων βαφάς. | ὄγκος 
(Tycho Mommsen, οἶκος MSS.) δ᾽ ὑπάρχει 
τῶνδε σὺν θεοῖς, ἄγαξ; | ἔχειν: πένεσθαι δ᾽ οὐκ 
ἐπίσταται δόμος : here ὄγκος εἱμάτων means ἃ 
great pile of raiment, as Herodotus has ὄγκος 
φρυγάνων : ‘the sea abounds with purple to 
dye our vesture, and of vesture for the 
dyeing we have plenteous store’: no fear 
then of dearth on either band. Porson’s 
οἴκοις Will not serve, for ὑπάρχει τῶνδε fails to 
convey the notion of abundance. 

In conclusion I give vv. 122-30 consecu- 
tively in order that their last state may be 
compared with their first : 

τὸ yap εἰθίσθαι ζῆν ex’ ἴσοισιν 

πρῶτα μὲν εἰπεῖν χρῆσθαί τε μακρῷ 

κρεῖσσον" ἐμοὶ γοῦν ἐπὶ μὴ μεγάλοις 
ὀχυρῶς εἴη καταγηράσκειν. 

τῶν γὰρ μετρίων τοὔνομα νικᾷ, 

τὰ δ᾽ ὑπερβάλλοντ᾽ ἄρρωστα βροτοῖς" 

μείζους δ᾽ ἄτας, ὅταν ὀργίσθη 

δαίμων ὄγκοις, ἀπέδωκαν. 


10 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


The following passages will not take so 
long to examine, 
24-26. 
κεῖται δ᾽ ἄσιτος, σῶμ’ ὑφεῖσ᾽ ἀλγηδόσιν, 
τὸν πάντα συντήκουσα δακρύοις χρόνον, 
ἐπεὶ πρὸς ἀνδρὸς ober’ ἠδικημένη. 


The old commentators took συντήκουσα for 
συντηκομένη, a use without example. The 
construction is now thought to be συντήκουσα 
χρόνον, and τήκει βιοτήν v. 141 is quoted as 
parallel. But parallel it is not: τήκει βιοτήν 
is a mere equivalent of τήκει ἑαυτήν OY τήκεται: 
αὐανῶ βίον in Soph. #7. 819 is just the same 
thing as αὐανοῦμαι in Phil. 954, and when 
Callimachus writes ὥμοσα σὸν βίον Catullus 
translates it adiwro te ; moreover if to melt 
time down meant anything at all it would 
apparently mean to shorten time or make it 
pass quickly. Clearly the sense wanted is 
that which συντηκομένη would give, that of 
1. A, 398, ἐμὲ δὲ συντήξουσι νύκτες ἡμέραι τε 
δακρύοις ; and this Mr. Verrall elicits by 
supplying σῶμα from the preceding verse. 
Kuripides, I think, might have devised some- 
thing more elegant than this ; and I would 
credit him rather with writing τὸν πάντα 
συντήκουσα δακρύοις χρόα, comparing 689 
τί yap σὸν ὄμμα χρώς τε συντέτη χ᾽ ὅδε 
and especially Hel. 1419, μή νυν ἄγαν σὸν 
δάκρυσιν ἐκτήξῃης χρόα. 


319—20. 
γυνὴ yap ὀξύθυμος, ὡς δ᾽ αὔτως ἀνὴρ, 
ῥάων φυλάσσειν ἢ σιωπηλὸς σοφός. 

Mr. Verrall’s seems the only possible 
account of the construction : possible I think 
it is, though the position of σοφός is curious. 
But what still perplexes me is the gender of 
σιωπηλός and σοφός : I do not understand why 
the parenthetic ὡς δ᾽ αὔτως ἀνήρ exerts this 
influence, considering especially that the 
speaker’s whole practical concern is with a 
woman. It is strange if the poet, who 
already in ὀξύθυμος and fawy had employed 
two adjectives suiting masc. and fem. alike, 
did not end the sentence with a third and 
write σιωπηλόστομος These com- 
pounds are frequent in tragedy : θρασύστομος, 
κακόστομος, σεμνόστομος, χαλκόστομος, ἀθυρό- 
στομος, αἰολόστομος, ἐλευθερόστομος. 

339. 


τί δ᾽ αὖ βιάζει κοὐκ ἀπαλλάσσει χερός ; 


τί δ᾽ avis quite inappropriate and the τί δ᾽ οὖν 
of one MS. is no better: Mr. Verrall pro- 
poses τί οὖν ; but it seems clear that the 
archetype had τί δ᾽ αὖ, which surely points to 
τί δαί. Brunck and Porson, as is well known, 
were for expelling this word from tragedy ; 
but let us weigh the evidence. The text of 


Aeschylus presents δαί once, at Prom. 933, 
τί δαὶ φοβοίμην; here syntax rejects it and 
demands δ᾽ ἂν in its stead: we infer then 
that Aeschylus did not use it. The text of 
Sophocles presents it once, at Ant. 318, τί 
δαὶ ῥυθμίζεις ; here MS. testimony is worth 
nothing, for if Sophocles wrote δὲ the scribe 
had a metrical temptation to an error always 
easy : we infer then that δαί was not used by 
Sophocles. If now Euripides did not use it, 
we might expect his text to offer two or 
perhaps three suspicious instances ; but if 
instead it offers at least half a dozen which 
of themselves give no handle to suspicion at 
all, the inference is obvious. 


351—356. προυννέπω δέ σοι, 
εἴ σ᾽ ἡ ᾽πιοῦσα λαμπὰς ὄψεται θεοῦ 
καὶ παῖδας ἐντὸς τῆσδε τερμόμων χθονὸς, 
θανεῖ: λέλεκται μῦθος ἀψευδὴς ὅδε. 
vov δ᾽, εἰ μένειν δεῖ, pip” ἐφ᾽ ἡμέραν play’ 
ov yap τι δράσεις δεινὸν ὧν φόβος μ’ ἔχει. 


Verse 356 makes no sense, has few defend- 
ers, and is usually now sent into exile with 
its innocent neighbour 355 for companion ; 
but why it was inserted no one can say. I 
offer this transposition and amendment : 


θανεῖ: λέλεκται μῦθος ἀψευδὴς ὅδε" 

μὴ γάρ τι δράσῃς, δεινὸν ὡς φόβος p’ ἔχει. 

νῦν δ᾽, εἰ μένειν δεῖ, μίμν᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἡμέραν μίαν. 
Sor I am horribly afraid lest you do mischief. 
Compare 281 sg. δέδοικά oe... μή μοί τι 
δράσῃς παῖδ᾽ ἀνήκεστον κακόν and frag. 608, 4, 
φόβος πρόσεστι μὴ δράσωσί τι. If the first 
letter » was lost the change of ἡ to οὐ was 
not difficult : οὐ for 7 is found at 1. A. 1189, 
and at Med. 695 we cannot tell whether 7 
should be od or μή. It now becomes possible 
to believe the hitherto incredible statement 
of the scholiast that after this verse Didymus 
read σιγῇ δόμους ἐσ Bao’ ἵν᾽ ἔστρωται λέχος. 

381— 383. 

GAN ἕν τί μοι πρόσαντες" εἰ ληφθήσομαι 
δόμους ὑπερβαίνουσα καὶ τεχνωμένη, 
θανοῦσα θήσω τοῖς ἐμοῖς ἐχθροῖς γέλων. 

I should like some proof that we can say 
δόμους ὑπερβαίνειν for ὀδὸν ὑπερβαίνειν : the 
δόμων ὑπερβᾶσ᾽ of supp. 1049 will not suffice 
and 15 moreover very uncertain. But how- 
ever this may be, I think that izeo Ba t- 
vovoa, which is precisely the σιγῇ δόμους 
ἐσβᾶσ’ of v. 380, will be much more expres- 
sive. Bothe has conjectured ὑπεμβαίνουσα. 


734—740. 
πέποιθα: ἸΤελίου δ᾽ ἐχθρός ἐστί μοι δόμος 
735 Κρέων τε. τούτοις 6, ὁρκίοισι μὴ ζυγεὶς 
[ἄγουσιν οὐ μεθεῖς ἂν ἐκ γαίας ἐμὲ 
λόγοις δὲ συμβὰς καὶ θεῶν ἀνώμοτος, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 11 


Ν , 2X 3 (4 
ψιλὸς γένοι᾽ ἂν κἀπικηρυκεύματα 
οὐκ ἀντιθεῖο: τἀμὰ μὲν γὰρ ἀσθενῆ, 
aN > 4 > \ XN / / 
740 τοῖς δ᾽ ὄλβος ἐστὶ καὶ δόμος τυραννικός. 


‘T trust you; but Creon and the house of 
Pelias are my enemies; and against these, 
if instead of a binding oath you make only 
a verbal pact without attestation of gods, 
you will be left defenceless and unable on 
your part to retort their diplomatic mes- 
sages,’ Here I have accepted Mr. Verrall’s 
ψιλός for φίλος in v. 738, together with his 
general view of the sense, which seems ab- 
solutely necessitated by πέποιθα, v. 734, and 
strongly though supertiuously confirmed by 
vv. 743-4 ; then I have altered μὲν to μὴ in 
v. 735 ; ejected with Badham the interpola- 
tion which μὲν occasioned, v. 736, containing 
as it does a barbarism if μεθεῖς is kept and 
a tortured construction if it is changed to 
μεθεῖ ; and amended ἂν πίθοιο in v. 739 to 
ἀντιθεῖο, Which perhaps merely because it is 
my own I prefer to Verrall’s ἀντισοῖο or 
Leo’s and Munro’s ὀκνῶν πίθοιο. With τού- 
τοις ψιλὸς γένοι᾽ ἂν καὶ οὐκ ἀντιθεῖο for τούτοις, 
ψιλὸς γενόμενος, οὐκ ἂν ἀντιθεῖο, compare Soph. 
Ant. 1279 8ᾳ. τὰ δ᾽ ἐν δόμοις | ἔοικας ἥκειν καὶ 
τάχ᾽ ὄψεσθαι κακά. 


856—859. 
πόθεν θράσος ἢ φρενὸς ἢ 
χειρὶ σέθεν τέκνων 
καρδίᾳ τε λήψει 
δεινὰν προσάγουσα τόλμαν ; 


The upshot of the criticism bestowed on 
this passage is that τέκνων must be re- 
placed by an accusative answering θράσος. 
Since μένος is not easy nor τέχναν adequate, 
while σθένος, though it might be absorbed 
by σέθεν, would not account for τέκνων, I do 
not see what else the word can have been 
but κότον, which is confounded now and 
again with τόκον, and that with τέκνον. 
Euripides seems to imitate Aesch. supp. 65 
sqq. παιδὸς μόρον, ὡς αὐτοφόνως ὥλετο πρὸς 
χειρὸς ἕθεν δυσμάτορος κότου τυχών. 

1317. 


a , -“ 
τί τάσδε κινεῖς κἀναμοχλεύεις πύλας ; 


There is no more innocent-looking verse in 
all Euripides. But Porson quotes these 
passages : ὦ καινῶν ἐπῶν κινητὰ Kal μοχλευτά 
from Ar. nub. 1397, following on an allusion 
to the Aeolus of our poet ; τί τούσδε κινεῖς κἀ- 
ναμοχλεύεις λόγους ; from two places in the 
Christus patiens; and τί ταῦτα κινεῖς κἄνα- 
μοχλεύεις ; τοῦτο δὴ τὸ τῶν τραγῳδῶν from 
Heliodorus’s Aethiopica. All this celebrity 
was never won by anything so simple as our 
text: Mr. Verrall then rightly infers that 


a strange word or a word strangely used 
stood here in lieu of πύλας, and he proposes 
éras. This will amply account for the notice 
attracted ; but whether it will suit the verse 
itself is not so sure: it does not seem to me 
that the ὁπαί or perforations of a door are 
things one can be said to ἀναμοχλεύειν any 
more than one unlocks keyholes in English. 
My own suggestion is tayas. πηγνύναι 
means to make fast ; and accordingly a right 
to mean anything that makes or is made 
fast is the inalienable heritage of πάγη. To 
show how various may be the meanings of a 
verbal substantive no better examples could 
be taken than words of this very family : 
πάγος, frost or rock, πῆγμα, scaffold or rennet 
for curdling. The liberty of a poet to set 
colloquial use at naught and impose on πάγη 
that meaning which specially appears in the 
related verb πακτοῦν (compare Ar. Lys. 265, 
μοχλοῖς δὲ Kal κλήθροισιν τὰ προπύλαια 
πακτοῦν) ought not I think to be 
doubted ; but we can go further. We know 
that Euripides again bestowed this same 
meaning in defiance of custom on another 
cognate of πηγνύναι, and that Aristophanes 
again laid hold on it as characteristic. In 
Acharn. 479, Euripides, interrupted at home 
in the writing of a tragedy, has acceded 
with tolerable urbanity to the endless re- 
quests with which he is pestered by Dicae- 
opolis; but when it comes to σκάνδικά μοι 
δὸς, μητρόθεν δεδεγμένος, that is too much, 
and he ends the interview and returns to the 
altitudes of tragedy with ἁνὴρ ὑβρίζει: κλῇε 
πηκτὰ δωμάτων : the point of this we learn 
from Pollux, x. 27, who informs us that 
Euripides somewhere or other used the words 
ide πακτὰ δωμάτων, frag. 991. Here too 
then I suppose that Euripides made πάγας 
mean the fastenings of a door; but πάγη 
in common parlance meant nothing but a 
net, and Use and Wont, ‘ grey nurses, loving 
nothing new,’ promptly resented the innova- 
tion through the lips of their champion 
Aristophanes. 

If this singular use of πάγη were found 
in a MS., we should tranquilly record it in 
our lexicons without suspicion or surprise. 
Emendations, as is right and natural, are 
less readily received ; but it happens that 
our lexicons already contain a use of the 
cognate πῆγμα equally unexampled and 
equally destitute of MS. authority: [ mean 
the ὅρκου πῆγμα γενναίως παγέν restored by 
Auratus to Aesch. dg. 1198, where πῆγμα 
has a meaning otherwise unknown, and the 
MSS. have not πῆγμα but πῆμα. 


A, E: Housman. 


12 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


A FRAGMENT OF THE LOST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


THE passage, where it stands, is without 
connection before or after: neither will it 
fit in elsewhere in the Epistle: we have only 
to remove it, and the continuity of vi. 13 
and vii. 2 is unmistakable. It comes in the 
middle of an impassioned outpouring of 
personal affection, almost in the middle of a 
sentence—mAatvvOnre καὶ ὑμεῖς ... χωρήσατε 
ἡμᾶς, ‘ Enlarge your hearts jas I do...make 
room in your hearts for me.’ 

Stanley suggests three hypotheses to ex- 
plain the ‘dislocation of the argument.’ 
One, that St. Paul really wrote the passage 
in this place, tacking it on to vi. 1, παρακα- 
λοῦμεν μὴ εἰς κενὸν τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ δέξασθαι 
ὑμᾶς, these words being understood to refer 
to contamination by heathen vices. But is 
it credible that in the very midst, at the 
very height, of his personal appeal to his 
friends to bestow upon him a more generous 
confidence, a fuller reciprocity of love, St. 
Paul should have gone off into an exhorta- 
tion to abstain from heathen vices? Between 
πλατύνθητε καὶ ὑμεῖς and χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς! 
Another hypothesis is, that at vi. 13 he was 
interrupted in the composition of the letter. 
That this paragraph was caused by some 
passing reflection during the interval which 
elapsed between the composition of what 
precedes and what follows. Can it be believed 
that vii. 2-4 was written after such an 
interval; that St. Paul thought it worth 
while and found it possible to resume the 
broken thread of his appeal so exactly where 
he left it, and so exactly at the same pitch 
of eloquence and of feeling; that he yet 
deliberately allowed this passage to break 
the continuity which he was so careful to 
preserve !/—Another suggestion is, that the 
passage belongs to our First Epistle. 

It is difficult to resist the suspicion that 
we have here a fragment of a lost epistle to 
Corinth, earlier than the First. In 1. v. 9 
St. Paul says, ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ μὴ 
συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις, referring to some 
general precept which he had given; and 
then he goes on to show how this is to be 
limited in its application. Now in our First 
Epistle he had so far spoken only of im- 
morality within the Church. He had com- 


manded them to punish the man who had 
made the scandalous marriage, and in general 
terms to cast out the old leaven. Nothing 
that he had said could bear the interpre- 
tation that he required them to cut them- 
selves off from all intercourse with immoral 
livers, whether within or without the pale of 
the Church, and so by inference from all 
intercourse with the heathen society in the 
midst of which they lived. And ἐν τῇ ἐπι- 
στολῇ (unless in a postscript) could not be 
said of the present letter. Evidently, St. 
Paul had written to the Corinthians before ; 
and his letter had contained some such 
command expressed in general terms, which 
had been misunderstood and had created 
perplexity ; and for the clearance of this, 
among other reasons, Stephanas and the other 
messengers had been sent by the Church, to 
obtain from St. Paul a more explicit state- 
ment of his meaning. I believe that we have 
here a fragment of this earlier letter. And 
the passage is precisely such as might have 
created the misapprehension which St. Paul 
in 1 Cor. v. corrects. ‘ Be ye not unequally 
yoked together with unbelievers...Come out 
from among them and be ye separate... Let 
us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the 
flesh and spirit.’ The passage was intended 
to warn them against the contamination of 
heathen vices. They understood it as a 
command to separate themselves altogether 
from heathen society. Heathen vices, St. 
Paul explains in 1 Cor. y., are to be excluded 
from the Church: they are to withdraw 
from all intercourse, not with unbelievers but 
with men of immoral lives calling themselves 
Christians. 

If the passage had been preserved, as it 
very well might have been, as an extract 
from a letter the rest of which had perished, 
and preserved, as it would have been by the 
Corinthians, with our two Epistles, there is 
no great difficulty in supposing that the MS. 
of it was mixed with the MS. of the Second 
Epistle, and that where it was found it was 
allowed to remain, under the impression that 
it belonged to this. 

R. WHITELAW. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 13 


NOTES ON THE PHARSALIA OF LUCAN. 


Most of the following notes bear upon 
the recent English commentary by Mr. C. E. 
Haskins. To avoid misapprehension, it seems 
well to state at the outset that his work is 
thoroughly sound and serviceable on the 
whole. Mistakes are few and far between. 
But it is precisely in such a case that it is 
worth while to point them out ; a book which 
has many on every page deserves nothing but 
neglect. 

In regard to textual criticism, Mr. Has- 
kins has, I think, just missed doing a notable 
service to classical study. If he had _ be- 
stowed a little more pains upon MS. readings, 
he would have shown how Jitile of such 
matter is necessary to a quite readable and 
satisfactory edition of a classical author. 
As it is, he has played into the hands of 
his enemies. In the few places where he 
does deal with the text, his suggestions are 
very good, and they are made with com- 
mendable caution (e.g. ‘Sabini’ in IX. 821). 


Boox I. 


76. Tellus extendere litora nolet 
Excutietque fretum. 


‘The land shall no more seek to advance 
her shore-line nor throw off the sea.’ 

‘The negative is carried on to the second 
clause, as is frequently the case in Lucan.’ 

In support of this Mr. Haskins quotes 
two passages which fare quite simple and 
not really like this one (II. 372-373, and 
1X. 589-590). Here a negative for ‘ excu- 
tiet’ has to be extracted from ‘ nolet.’ 

It would perhaps be rash to pronounce 
this altogether impossible. But it is at 
least unnecessary. The words may very 
well mean, ‘The land will refuse to set its 
shores as a long barrier to the waters, and 
will shake off the sea’ (violently, so that it 
returns, we may imagine, with overwhelming 
force). Bentl. proposed to read ‘quaeret.’ 

291. Sic postquam fatus, et ipsi 
In bellum prono tantum tamen 

addidit irae. 


H. says ‘ipse is often used by slaves of 
their master, and by disciples of their 
teacher.’ Here ‘his leader.’ 

‘Et ipsi in bellum prono’ is simply 
μεμαῶτι καὶ αὐτῷ: Hager as he was in him- 
self, of his own will, Curio’s words neverthe- 
less gave his passion a fresh impulse. 


577. 


Horruit Alcides viso iam Dite Me- 
gaeram. 


This is not so simple as many passages on 
which Mr. Haskins does give a note. Her- 
cules had seen Dis in his own realm, yet 
Megaera is terrible enough to make him 
shudder. 


Boox II. 


103. Stat perhaps = πέπηγεν, ἐπανθεῖ, of 
stiff, clotted blood. 

587. Umbras nunquam flectente Syene. 

‘i.e. S. is exactly under the equator, so 
that the midday sun being vertically over- 
head casts no shadow.’ 

Syene is on the northern tropic, not on 
the equator. And the sun would be pre- 
cisely overhead there only once in the year, 
namely, at midsummer. It was the first 
place, to a traveller going south, where this 
ever occurred. Lucan exaggerates. In the 
middle of winter, at Syene, the midday sun 
would be about half-way between the zenith 
and the horizon. 

It may be added that, even if Syene were 
on the equator, the sun would be precisely 
overhead only twice in the year, namely, at 
the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. 


Book III. 


168. Pauperiorque fuit tum primum 
Caesare Roma. 


(Lucan has just described how Caesar 
broke into the treasury in spite of the re- 
sistance of Metellus.) 

H.’s note is brief: ‘Weise thinks that 
this is a reference to Caesar’s former debts.’ 

The point is surely a much more obvious 
one. To Lucan, writing under Nero, 
‘“Caesare’ would mean ‘a Caesar’ or ‘the 
emperor.’ Since the time when Caesar 
broke into the treasury, Rome had often 
been poorer than its master. The ‘fiscus’ 
rivalled and overshadowed the ‘aerarium’ 
(cf. Statius, Si/vae, 111. 3, 86-109). 


Boox IV. 


194. For ‘vellera’ cf. Varro Atae. fr. 21, 
nubes ceu vellera lanae, the original of the 
passage in Virgil which H. quotes. Varro 
writes ‘cew vellera’: to Luean the word is 
familiar as a name for a species of cloud. 


168. Exiguo paulum distantia vallo. 


14 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


‘Exiguo vallo’ is a descriptive ablative. 
Two separate things are said about the 
camps: they were very near each other, and 
the rampart was low. 

986-7. Cf. Hom. 11. xi. 477, ὄφρ᾽ αἷμα 
Niapov καὶ yovvar’ ὀρώρῃ, ἃ passage which 
Lucan may have had in mind when he 
wrote. 


526-8. Nam sol Ledaea tenebat 

Sidera, vicino cum lux altissima 
Cancro est: 

Nox tum Thessalicas urgebat 


parva sagittas. 


‘The sun was in the constellation Gemini, 
when at midday it is nearest to Cancer and 
at midnight to Sagittarius.’ There must be 
some mistake or misprint here, for it is 
quite incredible that Mr. Haskins meant 
that the sun passes through all the signs of 
the zodiac in twenty-four hours! At mid- 
night in summer the sun is still in Gemini, 
next Cancer, Gemini and Cancer being then 
under the northern horizon. 

The passage is to be explained as follows. 
‘The sun was in Gemini when his light is 
highest, with Cancer close by’ (vicino 
Canecro’ is like ‘exiguo vallo’ in 168, a de- 
scriptive abl. or even an abl. absolute, 
giving a distinct and subordinate fact about 
his position). The sun is highest then, about 
twenty-three degrees above the celestial 
equator, and therefore rises earlier than at 
any other period of the year (525, nec 
segnis mergere ponto | tuncerat astra polus), 
‘a short night sees Sagittarius low in the 
southern sky’: or perhaps—though I think 
this less likely—‘there is very little night 
left after Sagittarius crosses the meridian, 
little night pursues him.’ 

Weise, whose note is quoted by H., seems 
to have had some vague conception of these 
facts, but he puts Cancer on the wrong side 
of Gemini (‘ praecedit Cancer solem ἢ). 

Owing to the precession of the equinoxes 
the ‘lux altissima’ would be nearer Cancer 
than it is now. 


643-4. Quisquis inest terris. in fessos 
spiritus artus 
Kgeritur ; tellusque viro luctante 
laborat. 


‘Egeritur: rises from it, ¢e. into his 
body,’ H. 

Rather ‘is drained into...’ 

‘Laborat: labours to assist him.’ 

This misses the point of the ablative. It 
is the earth that suffers or is exhausted, 
though he is the visible combatant. 


667-9. Qui robore quamquam 

Confisus Latio regis tamen un- 
dique vires 

Excivit Libycae gentis extrema- 
que mundi 


Signa suum comitata Iubam. 


Mr. Haskins says, ‘“The power of the 
King of the Libyan tribes,” 1.6. Juba. Gro- 
tius suggests Lipyae gentes in apposition to 
vires, a reading which, according to Oud. is 
supported by some MSS.’ 

Grotius’s suggestion was a good one, and 
Mr. Haskins’ view wants more defending 
than he gives it. There are two objections 
to taking gentis as a genitive. Would 
Lucan write so awkward and formless a 
construction as...regis...Libycae gentis4 
And would he lengthen the -is of the gen. 
before a vowel? As regards the latter 
point, it may be noted that (a) on no theory 
of the passage is there a strong pause after 
gentis such as sometimes accounts for 
lengthening of this nature; (4) in Mr. Heit- 
land’s introduction (p. ci.) a list of peculiar 
quantities in Lucan is given, which does not 
include this or anything quite like it, the 
writer adding, ‘This list is as nearly com- 
plete as 1 can make it. There is very little 
to note under this head, and it is just this 
fact that is significant.’ 

670-675. Non fusior ulli 
Terra fuit domino: qua sunt 

longissima regna 
Cardine ab occiduo vicinus 

Gadibus Atlas 
Terminat: a medio confinis 

Syrtibus Hammon. 

At qua lata iacet vasti plaga 
fervida regni, 
Distinet Oceanum ete. 


This obscure description is best explained 
by the fact that Lucan wrongly conceived 
Africa as extending much further to the 
east than it really does—extending far out 
towards Ceylon (cf. X. 292 and H.’s note: 
the Seres are near the sources of the Nile, 
though even they have not seen the river’s 
cradle), ‘A medio’ will then mean simply 
‘in the middle’ (not ‘a medio cardine,’ 
supplying ‘ cardine’ from cardine ab occiduo). 
Plaga fervida will mean the eastern region 
of Libya, whence comes the sun (not the 
south, as H. takes it). ‘ Distinet Oceanum,’ 
not ‘separates the ocean, i.e. extends to the 
ocean in both directions, to the North and 
South,’ but ‘separates...to the Hast and 
West.’ This is more in keeping with the 
ideas of the ancients. They speak of the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 15 


Ocean stream, it is true, as encircling the 
whole globe, but that it les to the Εἰ. and 
W. is more clearly realized and more 
readily suggests itself (the sun rising thence 
and setting in it again) than its northern 
and southern circuit. Would Lucan speak 
of the Mediterranean, which bounds Africa 
on the N., as ‘Oceanus’ ἢ 


Boox V. 


93-94. Here and on I. 89 Mr. Haskins 
quotes the prayer of Hecuba, ὦ γῆς ὄχημα 
x.7.A, (where nothing is said about αἰθήρ or 
ἀήρ), when the following quotation would 
have been more apposite : 


Ἔπῆς Ἂν Ni ε las / > 4 5327 
ὁρᾶς τὸν ὑψοῦ τόνδ᾽ ἄπειρον αἰθέρα 
Ν fol / ἢ 3.5.6 Ἂν > > ΄ 
καὶ γῆν πέριξ ἔχονθ᾽ ὑγραῖς ἐν ἀγκάλαις ; 
τοῦτον νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τόνδ᾽ ἡγοῦ θεόν. 


Eur. fr. inc. 935 (Nauck). 


140. Ora quibus solvat nostro non in- 
venit aevo. 


Why should not ‘ora solvere’ here have 
the sense which it has in 1. 98, oraque vatis 
solvit—who deserve that he should lend 
them utterance, unlock their lips, make them 
his προφῆται Ἷ 


159. 


Nisi mergeris antris. 


The use of si with the present indicative 
found in Lucan and his contemporaries is 
strange enough to require notice from a 
commentator. Here mergeris would be the 
strictly accurate construction. In 1. 533 ‘si 
lussa secutus me vehis Hesperiam’ would 
mean properly ‘if it is in obedience to dic- 
tation that you are carrying me to Italy.’ 
It does mean, ‘if you obey me and carry me 
to Italy’ (vehes, vexeris). L. 349 is another 
instance. So IX. 212: 


Et mihi si fatis aliena in iura venimus 
Da talem, Fortuna, Iubam. 


Here we are tempted to interpret, ‘if sub- 
jection zs the gulf to which we are drifting’ ; 
and similar explanations can be devised in 
most of the other instances. But it is 
simpler to recognize a certain looseness of 
construction. V. 533 can hardly be ex- 
plained away: for Caesar has not yet em- 


barked. 
Boox VI. 
311. Nec sancto caruisset vita Catone. 


This curious phrase is perhaps best ex- 
plained by taking ‘vita’ to mean ‘society,’ 
‘the world.’ Martial sometimes uses the 


word in a sense like this, as when he says of 
his own writings : 


Agnoscat mores vita legatque suos. 


437. Quarum quidquid non creditur ars 
est. 


All that is most ineredible ({.6. horrible) 
is their daily trade. 

(H.’s note is ‘ars est] quam profitentur. 
Sulpitius.’) 

550. ‘Quodcunque’ is questionable. Lu- 
can is usually precise in such constructions. 
‘Quacunque...nudum...videt’ is proposed in 
Weber’s note. 


Boox VIL. 


Crastina dira quies et imagine 
maesta diurna 

Undique funestas acies feret, 
undique bellum. 

Unde pares somnos populi noc- 
temque beatam 4 


26-29. 


‘To-morrow’s night of horror haunted by 
the sad image of the day’s events.’ 

‘Imago diurna’ suggests rather the fol- 
lowing sense: ‘To-morrow a dreadful dream 
will come, a waking vision of horror (οὐκ 
ὄναρ ἀλλ᾽ ὕπαρ ἐχθρ ὁ νὴ), presenting to every 
glance the deadly ranks of battle.’ 

On 1. 28 Mr. Haskins proceeds to resusci- 
tate a view rightly condemned by Corte, 
that ‘pares’ is a verb (somnos populi, ‘sleep 
such as the people enjoy’). Corte himself 
wished to read ‘ populis’ (for which he cites 
several MSS.) in the sense of ‘the Pompeian 
forces.’ 

Neither interpretation gives a sense at all 
relevant to the context : 

O felix si te vel sic tua Roma videret ! 
Lucan wishes that Pompey and the people of 
Rome (utinam et idem contigisset populo 
Romano, Schol.) had met in the land of 
dreams (vel sic), if nowhere else, for a last 
farewell. And line 28 must, I think, lead 
up to this idea. ‘Would that the people 
could enjoy like slumbers, a like night of 
bliss!’ The genitive ‘populi’ is difficult, 
but not unintelligible (O for like slumber to 
be theirs, O that like slumbers were theirs !). 
The dat. is the usual construction, but with 
a ‘populo’ in the next line Lucan would 
avoid it. 


144, 


Si liceat superis hominum conferre 
labores. 


‘Se. superum laboribus, “σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον 
καὶ μέρος.᾽ comparatio compendiaria. 

185-7. What wonder that the com- 
batants were filled with fear? Romans 


10 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


everywhere felt that trouble was impending. 
‘Populos’ means the nations or contingents 
on the field of battle ‘whose last hour had 
come.’ H. says ‘populos appears to refer 
to Romans living abroad,’ quoting 1. 436, 
which does not help him. This mistake 
forces him to attach an unnatural sense to 
‘lux extrema ’—‘ the last day worth living.’ 


198. Aethera seu totum discordi obsis- 
tere caelo 
Perspexitque polos. 


Construe: aethera polosque obsistere per- 
spexit. 


202. Si cuncta perito 

Augure mens hominum caeli nova 
signa notasset 

Spectari toto 
mundo. 


potuit Pharsalia 


‘Cuncta mens hominum is probably equi- 
valent to mens cunctorum hominum: perito 
augure, under the guidance of a skilful 
augur: but it is possible that “ cuncta 
perito”’ should be taken together as “skilled 
in all things”’.’ This is very unsatisfactory. 
‘Cuncta’ must be taken with ‘signa.’ ‘If 
through the eyes of a skilled augur the mind 
of man could have marked all the altered 
signs (constellations) of heaven, Pharsalia 
might have been read in the whole sky.’ 
H. says ‘all the world might have known 
that Pharsalia was being fought,’ forgetting 
that this would have been expressed by toto 
orbe (Schol. in toto caelo spectari Pharsalia 
potuisset). 


280. Sitque palam quas tot duxit Pom- 
pelus in urbem 
Curribus unius gentes non esse 


triumphi. 


‘Are not material for a single triumph.’ H. 
This is ambiguous at least. The meaning 
is, ‘cannot help him to a single triumph,’ 
‘to one triumph,’ as the sequel shows. 


675. Sed tu quoque, coniunx, 
Causa fugae voltusque tui: fatisque 
negatum 


Te praesente mori. 


H. takes ‘-que’ disjunctively, ‘but...,’ 
a sense which it undoubtedly has in Lucan 
sometimes. It is better to make ‘negatum’ 
a third subject to the predicate ‘causa,’ ‘and 
the fact that Cornelia was not there to see 
him fall’ (omitting the colon after ‘ tui’). 


760. Decipitur quod castra rapit. 


The singular decipitur is strange, when 


the soldiers have just been spoken of in the 
plural (757, putabunt). Should we read 
‘decipitur qui castra rapit? (‘ victor’ in that 
case being Caesar). 


192. 


H. quotes Caesar B.C. III. 99 for the 
number of Pompeians killed at Pharsalia 
(fifteen thousand). Perhaps ‘counts the 
number of nations — nationalities—that 
Pompey had led.’ 


Et Magni numerat populos. 


794. Cf. Stat. heb. I. 702. 
Adsiduam pelago non quaerere Delon. 


(Not to have to look for Delos, not to look 
in vain for it, since it is no longer φορητὰ 
κυμάτεσσι παντοδαπαῖς τ᾽ ἀνέμων ῥιπαῖσιι L 
quote this partly because Baehrens with his 
usual boldness printed ‘nunc quaerere,’ ex- 
plaining ‘nwne scripsi non codd.’), 


Boox VIII. 


18. Gravis est Magno quicumque 
malorum 
Testis adest. 


Not ‘a danger to Magnus,’ but oppressive 
to him. Magnus ‘cannot bear to meet’ any 
witness of his defeat. 


44, Tristes praesagia curas 
Exagitant 


is rather ‘besiege’ or ‘torment her sorrow- 
ful heart’ than ‘forebodings excite gloom 
. ? 5 
anxiety. 
Boox IX. 
211. Scire mori sors prima viris, sed 
proxima cogi. 


Mr. Haskins’ translation does not make the 
contrast clear. ‘Scire mori’ would sug- 
gest by association ‘ consciscere sibi mortem.’ 
The things contrasted are ‘to find death by 
one’s own hand,’ and ‘to have it thrust 
upon one.’ So on 571 numquam successu 
crescat honestum, his translation is vague 
and unincisive (‘the right never grows 
greater by success’). The meaning is ‘an 
honourable cause is no more honourable 
because it succeeds.’ 

578. Why does Mr. Haskins adopt the 
cumbrous and infelicitous reading, ‘estque 
...ubi.,.rather than estne...nisi... 4 

579. ‘Ultra’ is rather ‘beyond these,’ 
‘elsewhere than in these’ (terra, pontus, 
aer, caelum, virtus) than ‘beyond our- 
selves.’ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. Li 


045. 


Numenque secundum 
Phorcus a juis. 


‘The deity propitious to the waves.’ H. 

Perhaps rather, ‘A God with only one 
above him’—Posidon; he is Ποσειδάωνος 
ὑποδμώς, like Proteus in Od. iv. Cf. IV. 
110, sorte secunda, of Posidon himself, to 
whom Zeus is superior. 


Book X. 


321. If any quotation is wanted on 


‘multo murmure montis,’ Horace’s ‘non 
sine montium clamore’ would give the key to 
the sense most readily. 

452. ‘Non timuit fatumque sibi promisit 
iniquom’ means ‘he did not fear or look for 
an adverse issue.’ This is the construction 
which Mr. Haskins explains in his note on 
J. 76. But he does not apply that explana- 
tion here, and takes the passage quite 
differently. 

W. R. Harpie. 


THE BODLEIAN MS. 


Persius, Cod. Bodl. Auct. F. i. 15 (formerly 
No. 2455). 


Arter reading Mr. M. H. Morgan’s note in 
the July number of the Classical Review, I 
have examined and collated this MS., and 
beg to send you the following notes on it, in 
hopes room may be found for them in the 
Review. 

It consists of 16 ff. of vellum ; the text is 
contained in 14 of the folios, 26 lines going 
tothe page. The first folio merely contains 
the statement of Leofric’s gift of the MS. to 
his cathedral, and the last is blank. 

The size of the pages is 15 in. X 10 in. 

It is beautifully written, each letter being 
most carefully formed. Mr. F. Madan pro- 
nounces it to be written in the tenth century, 
in Caroline minuscules, but showing pecu- 
liarities which clearly prove it to have been 
written in England. The open g’s are un- 
doubtedly English, and Mr. W. H. Stevenson 
has pointed out to me that Runic letters 
are used as signs to mark the places to which 
marginal scholia refer. These scholia, both 
interlinear and marginal, are copious. They 
appear to be by the same hand as the text, 
and are certainly ail or nearly all of the 
same date. The titles at the beginning, and 
at the beginning of each Book, and the first 
line of each Book, are painted in red and 
green capitals of various sizes. The first 
letter of each line throughout is a capital 
painted in red. There are no other capitals 
in the text. 

It is bound up with four fragmentary ff. of 
a treatise of Boethius on the metres used by 
himself, and with 73 ff. containing Boethius’s 
De Consolatione, the Persius coming at the 
end of the volume thus formed, which is 
strongly bound in white sheepskin. Mr. 

NO. XXX. VOL. Iv. 


OF PERSIUS, SAT. IIT. 


Madan tells me the style of the binding 
would of itself be enough to prove the 
volume came from Exeter, and he considers 
the binding certainly not later than the 
fourteenth century. 

Its history from the time of Leofric is 
clear and uneventful. It bears, as stated 
above, an inscription in Latin and Old 
English, to the effect that Leofric, Bishop of 
Exeter, gave it to the cathedral there for the 
use of his successors. This inscription is 
confirmed by an Evangeliarium, Bodl. MS. 
Auct. D. ii. 16, which has at its beginning 
an inventory of land recovered for the 
cathedral by Leofric, and land, church fur- 
niture, and books presented to it by him. 
In this list occurs ‘liber boetii de consola- 
tione,’ and (in another part of the list) 
‘liber persii.’ These are clearly the two 
MSS. now bound up together. 

It appears from Mr. Macray’s Annals of 
the Bodleian Library that when Bodley was 
collecting books for his new library, in the 
year 1602 (the very year in which it was 
solemnly opened), the Dean and Chapter of 
Exeter made him a munificent present of 
eighty-one Latin MSS. from their Chapter 
Library, where the books appear to have 
been getting very damp. Five at least of 
these volumes were among the gifts of 
Leofric to his church. Among them was 
our volume of Boethius and Persius, which 
has thus been in the Bodleian from the date 
of its opening. 

To trace how the Persius MS. came into 
Leofric’s hands is I suppose impossible. 

Leofric was Bishop of Exeter from 1050, 
when the see was founded, to 1072, having 
been made Bishop of Crediton in 1046. He 
is variously described as a Burgundian, and 
as ‘Britonicus,’ which again is variously 

σ 


18 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


taken to mean a Breton and a Cornishman. 
Yet Leofric is a Saxon name. 

Wherever born, he was brought up and 
educated in Lotharingia, whence he probably 
came over to England as chaplain to King 
Edward, when that monarch came and 
assumed the crown 1042 (vid. F. E. Warren, 
Leofric Missal). 

On beginning to collate the MS. I was 
struck by the continual agreement of its 
readings with those of the MS. in the Gale 
Collection at Trinity College, Cambridge, 
which was apparently unknown to Jahn 
(Jahn’s y is a different MS.), and the read- 
ings of which Prof. Conington has printed 
under the text in his edition. 

Conington refers the Gale MS. (on Brad- 
shaw’s authority) to the ninth or tenth 
century. 

I have therefore collated the Bodleian 
MS. (Jahn’s £) throughout with this Gale 
MS. (which for brevity I will call w) as de- 
scribed by Conington. The similarity is 
not quite so marked in some of the later 
Satires as in the first, but throughout seems 
very noteworthy. 

f seems to have been very carefully written 
(much more carefully than w) and corrected 
with extreme care after it was written. 
There are some points, it is true, in which 
it goes all abroad. 

(1) ἃ is inserted or admitted arbitrarily. 

(2) wand eare treated as interchangeable ; 
also often ¢ and y are confused, also ὁ and ἐδ, 
single and double consonants, e.g. s and ss, 
final zs and es. 

(3) It is inconsistent as to assimilation of 
letters, generally assimilating more than a, 
e.g. 2. supplantat, w. subplantat. 

(These points, and the divisions between 
the words, have not been taken account of 
in the following figures.) 

In other respects the number of mere slips 
uncorrected in 2 seems astonishingly small. 

As to the agreement between β and w, 1 
reckon that in 77 cases where the MSS. 
differ, β and ὦ agree absolutely ; to these 
may be added 12 where w shows a correction, 
and 8 = was corrected. In 14 out of these 
89 cases ὦ + αὶ stand alone against all the 
MSS. known to Jahn (ed. 1843). In 2 more 
ω + β have only one other MS. agreeing 
with them. 

In these cases of unique agreement, the 
difference from the other MSS. is no doubt 
generally slight: eg. 11. 45, ὠ.β. furtunare, 
cet. fortunare; II. 57, w.8. mittent, cet. 
mittunt ; IIIf. 75, w.8. munimenta, cet. 
monumenta, 

In 6 other cases B agrees with ὦ, but 


mentions a v./. unknown to ὦ (N.B.—f 

often superscribes συ. prefixed by a ‘vel’ 

or ‘al.’): eg. VI. 49, w is almost alone in 
al, duco 

reading ‘in luco.’ £ has in luco. 

But the most noteworthy fact of all ap- 
pears to me to be this, that in 43 cases B 
appears to have had the reading of ὦ (in the 
great mass of them certainly had it: in a 
few an erasure leaves a little uncertainty 
what was the original reading), and has 
been corrected away from it. In 10 of these 
w’s reading (as far as Jahn shows) is 
unique: 6.9. V. 179, ὦ is alone in reading 
actum; 8 has at cum; but it can be seen 
that the ὁ was originally a ¢, and thetac. 
I. 131, ὦ alone reads insecto; 8 has secto 
with an erasure leaving room for two letters 
before the s. So much for the agreement, 
against which must be set the following 
differences. 

In 9 cases ὦ = βὶ as corrected. Most 
of these are unimportant, for 6 makes an 
obvious slip, and then corrects itself. 


1 

V. 15 is noticeable: ὦ teris, βὶ teres. 

In one passage, V. 111, w appears to have 
corrected away from f’s reading ;_ but 
Conington is here doubtful about wo. 

In 44 cases w stands absolutely alone, in 
almost ali of them being obviously wrong. 

In 8 cases β is similarly alone and wrong. 

Where the MSS. are divided, ὦ and B 
differ in 29 places. Among the more import: - 
ant differences are: I. 57, ὦ. extet, β. extat ; 
III. 78, w. sapio satis est, 8. satis est sapio. 

It would seem I take it from these facts 
that there must be some rather close con- 
nexion between the two MSS. On the other 
hand the differences clearly negative the 
possibility of 6 being a simple copy of o. 
From the number of wv.//. inserted in β, and 
from the number of corrections in it, some 
of them not merely corrections of slips but 
alterations from one possible reading to 
another one, it seems evident that the writer 
and corrector of 8 had more than one MS. 
before them. Is it possible that ὦ may be 
one of two MSS. they had before them, and 
that they sometimes used their wits on a 
given passage before copying down either 
reading?! I do not know enough about 
MSS. to judge whether this is a very un- 
likely hypothesis, but it appears β' is not 
alone among MSS. of Persius in giving a 
number of wvll., and I see Jahn complains 
that it is almost impossible to classify the 
MSS. of Persius in families, because they 
are so up and down in their agreements and 
differences: a fact which would seem most 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 19 


‘easily explicable by supposing a scribe often 
had more than one MS. before him. 

Possibly 8 may be copied from the arche- 
type of w. In any case the number of in- 
stances where it agrees or did originally 
agree with w, where all other MSS. appear 
to differ, is striking ; unless indeed there be 
a whole family of English MSS. which Jahn 
has neglected. 

It is certainly very curious that Prof. 
Conington, who collated 7 MSS. for his 
edition, 2 of them being Oxford ones of the 
twelfth and fourteenth centuries respectively, 
gives in his preface no hint that he knows of 
the existence of this tenth century MS. in 
the Bodleian. 

I may note that Jahn’s information found 
in the Berlin Library as to the readings of 
β is very defective indeed, and not seldom 
quite wrong. It would appear that now 
and then the notes given Jahn by Hauthal 
of the readings of Oxford MSS. refer to β. 
e.g. V. 15: Jahn’s note reads ‘ teres (supr. i) 


Oxon. antiqu. ap. Hauthal. terris β΄ Here 
what Jahn supposes to be the readings of 
two MSS. are really a correct and an utterly 
incorrect account of the same MS. given 
him by his two authorities. 

As to the passages Mr. Morgan specially 
asks about: VI. 26, 6 reads metuas, Harte. 
right, Jahn defective; VI. 46, 6 reads 

vels 
uictis. VI. 51, 8 reads audeo inquit. VI. 
69, Unge puer caules, mihi festa luce coque- 
tur. Jahn right. 

I shall be glad to furnish Mr. Morgan 
with any other information he wants about 
β᾽ 5 readings. 


N.B.—It is of course possible that in some 
instances my inferences from Conington’s 
silence as to w’s reading—that it agrees with 
his text—may prove fallacious. I shall hope 
soon to get a sight of ὦ and test this. 


G. R. Scort. 


LEAF’S ILIAD. 


The Iliad, with English Notes and Introduc- 
tion, by Watrer Lear, Litt. D., late 
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Vol I. Books xiii.—xxiv. (London, Mac- 
millan & Co. and New York, 1888). pp. 
xvii. 505. 


Dr. Lear’s second volume has followed his 
first with comparatively little delay, a fact 
in itself deserving of great commendation, 
especially in the editing of an author re- 
quiring such wide reading and patient toil. 
His work continues to be of the same high 
order as in the earlier volume ; there is the 
same independence of thought, sound judg- 
ment, and common sense. Nor has the 
editor sickened of his task and grown care- 
less as he struggles towards the end. With 
Dr. Leaf it has been a labour of love to the 
very last line. There is no trace of hasty or 
ill-considered work in a single note; all has 
been thought out with care. The notes are 
full of information on all departments of 
Homeric study, whether textual, linguistic, or 
antiquarian. It is his manysidedness which 
gives such a charm to Dr. Leaf’s notes. 
He is not simply master of the dry bones of 
scholarship, but his knowledge and interest 
in Greek Archaeology and the history of 
early institutions enable him to make the 


dry bones live. Dr. Leaf has himself been 
a genuine first-hand worker at Homer, and 
often embodies in his notes fresh and valu- 
able suggestions of his own, some of which 
have already appeared from time to time in 
the Journal of Hellenic Studies. Uence it 
is that he is at home in the Homeric world, 
and never, as so many have unwittingly 
done, falls into the fatal mistake of thrusting 
into his subject ideas derived from the later 
ages of Greek life or from mediaeval 
chivalry. 

In a short introduction the editor dis- 
courses afresh on the ‘ Origin of the Poems.’ 
In his former volume (p. xxiv.) he had ex- 
pressed an opinion ‘that the original battle 
at the ships belonging to the Μῆνις could 
not be extricated from M-N-Z-O.’ Further 
examination has now led him to alter 
this view and, although the composition of 
these books is highly complicated and doubt- 
ful, he thinks that he has found a clue to 
guide him to a conclusion as probable 
as any of those hitherto aimed at. ‘This 
clue is the presence or absence of the 
wall and moat about the Greek Camp.’ 
These seem to have been absolutely un- 
known to the original poem; any mention 
of them is to be ascribed to the later hands. 
Armed with this cviterion of the wall (which 


c 2 


20 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Thucydides employed for estimating the 
amount of the Greek forces when they 
landed at Troy), he proceeds to decompose 
the above-mentioned books into their com- 
ponent elements. He thinks that the best 
proof is to be found in Book If(XVI.). The 
wall having been made a leading feature in 
the assault upon the ships could not be 
entirely passed over in the retreat ; but the 
attempt to introduce it in II has in every 
case led to hopeless confusion. This thesis 
has been carefully and persuasively worked 
out in the excellent introductions to the 
several books and in the notes on special 
passages. The wall is constantly found 
likewise keeping bad company, being con- 
tinually in connexion with passages which 
betray signs of later style. 

Dr. Leaf regards the Aristeia of Idomeneus 
(N 136-672) as standing by itself, being 
‘earlier than the invention of the wall, yet 
not reconcilable with the Myjus.’ He like- 
wise regards as another individual addition 
the making of the Arms (last part of 3) 
led up to by the very conservative skilful 
additions to H, probably by the larger 
additions in the last part of P, and by some 
alteration of the early part of 3%. He 
ascribes to a far inferior hand the large 
additions to T, Y, and ®, whilst the end of 
X shows a close analogy with the most 
beautiful part of Z. 

The best part of W and all O are due toa 
poet of the highest order, who, if not the 
author of the best portion of the Odyssey, 
at least stands in close relations with that 
poem. Professor Jebb’s view that he is the 
poet of I is regarded as possible and 
plausible. 

Then follows an elaborate table setting 
forth in five columns the separate strata of 
which the //zad is composed in their (sup- 
posed) chronological order. To the Mins 
some 3400 lines are ascribed. 

The introduction likewise gives an account 
of the three Papyrus-fragments of the Jad. 
We are never very likely to all agree as to 
what are interpolations and what are not, but 
as long as the spirit of progress exists, scholars 
will not cease striving to solve the enigmas 
which surround the bulk of the Ziad. So 
long as those efforts are directed to ascer- 
taining the relative ages of the various 
strata all must heartily approve, but when 
Dr. Leaf evinces a desire to reject Nestor’s 
speeches on the ground of their inferiority 
of style, it makes us wince. What! The 
Iliad without Nestor! For if we take from 
him his long didactic harangues, we may 
retain his name, but his personality is gone. 


Those who follow out the strictly critical 
examination of the Poems have to guard 
against the danger of forming an ideal of 
the poet of the original kernel. They are 
inclined to picture him to themselves as 
incapable of writing a single line which is 
not of the highest order (according to their 
own notions of perfection). Any passages 
then which do not attain to this standard 
and do not deal directly with the subject of 
the original Μῆνις, quickly come under their 
ban. And yet all admit that some of the 
noblest poetry in the liad is found, the 
admittedly later parts, in the last six books. 

The criticism of later years however is 
all tending to the satisfactory conclusion that, 
whether or not the Poems have undergone 
change from time to time as their original 
Aeolie gave place to Ionic forms, all parts of 
them save a few sporadic lines can lay an 
honest claim to great antiquity. Linguistic 
and grammatical science as well as the 
customs and institutions portrayed all point 
to the same conclusion. 

The introductions to the different books 
are models of concise and clear summary. 
Every point of importance in the structure of 
the book is touched on, whilst the reader is 
not wearied by laboured diffuseness which so 
often mars similar attempts. The intro- 
duction to 4 may serve as an excellent 
sample. 

Space of course forbids an elaborate ex- 
amination of the matter in the notes. But 
Dr. Leaf has left little opportunity for 
anything save praise. He has made a 
notable addition to our means for ulti- 
mately solving that most important passage, 
the Trial Scene (Σ 500), by taking ἀναίνετο 
in its proper Homeric sense of ‘refused’ 
instead of the traditional ‘denied,’ and by 
his very ingenious explanation, based on 
the procedure in the Hwumenides (already 
published in the Journal of Hellenic Studies). 
On N 697 he has a good note, but we should 
have liked something more explicit about 
yvwros. Words denoting kinship are of 
such importance for the knowledge of early 
society that we cannot spare any lhght which 
can be cast on them. The derivation from 
γιγνώσκω seems absurd, I have long thought 
that possibly the true explanation was that 
γνωτός : γον (γόνος) = (κασι)γνητος, γνήσιος : 
γεν (γένος). The wonder is that this has not 
been suggested Jong ago. γνωτὸς is thus 
simply a kinsman and in Homer is in process 
of being narrowed down to mean brother, as 
was the case ultimately with κασίγνητος and 
the Latin frater. In N 130 I would prefer 
to explain (following the indication of the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 21 


schol.) σάκος σάκει προθελύμνῳ as locking 
shield upon the shield that formed the layer 
in front, just as was done in the συνασπισμός 
of later times. 

There are some excellent notes on βλῆο 
(N 288) and in the very difficult προκρόσσας 
in Ξ. 36. By the way it may be noticed 
that the ladies of the Homeric period had 
no combs; at least Hera (Ξ 176) combs her 
tresses with her fingers, which recalls the 
Tragic periphrasis for fingers, κτένες χερῶν. 
Is it more likely that the cestus of Aphrodite 
(κεστὸν ἱμάντα) was a leatnern girdle orna- 
mented with a pattern of punctures rather 
thin embroidered ? Such a form of ornament 
is, I believe, common among modern savages. 
From 1. 214 it seems to have represented 


the ταινία μαστῶν of later times rather than 
the ζώνη. In & 373 one hardly sees why 
Dr. Leaf takes τρίποδες -- tables, instead of 
caldrons, the usual meaning of the word in 
the Iliad. Nor do we feel quite satisfied 
with his explanation of πυθμένι in 375. Can 
the fact that we so often get the form τείνω 
Ξε τίνω in Inscriptions lend any support to 
νείσοντο, the MS. reading for νίσσοντο in &. 
568 1 

In conciusion let us again congratulate 
Dr. Leaf on having achieved one of the 
most remarkable pieces of scholarship 
attempted for many years in England, and 
may we express the hope that he will advance 
into fresh fields of Homeric study. 

Witiiam Ripeeway, 


SCHUCKBURGH’S HERODOTUS. 


Herodotos VI. With Introduction, Notes and 
Maps. By E. 8. Suucksurcn, M.A. (Pitt 
Press Series.) Cambridge: 1889. 4s. 6d. 

Herodotos 1X. 1-89 ditto. 1887. 3s. 6d. 


Tue Highth Book of Herodotus by the same 
editor has not come to hand ; but, to judge 
by the Preface to the first volume cited 
above, is drawn up on the same lines as the 
books under review, and no doubt with 
equal care and success. The separate pub- 
lication of a section of the Ninth Book was 
presumably dictated by the exigencies of 
education or of examination, and the editor 
has apparently had in view all along the 
needs of comparative beginners. The aids 
afforded to the beginner are almost too 
generous ; there will be little left for his 
master to do but to see that he gets Mr. 
Shuckburgh by heart! His comprehension 
of the story in Herodotus is assisted by an 
English analysis inserted in the text, almost 
chapter by chapter, as well as by an his- 
torical Introduction (pp. ix.—xl. in the case 
of Book VI.,ix.—xxvi. in the caseof book 1X.) 
An Historical and Geographical Index, con- 
sisting of short articles on the proper names 
occurring in the text, supplements the 
Introduction, and leaves the editor free to 
devote the Votes mainly to points of 
grammar and scholarship. Some notes on 
the text are inserted as a separate article. 
The edition of Book IX. contains an Appen- 
dix (after Abicht) on the Dialect. From 
this account of the edition it will be obvious 
that, assuming the notes and so forth to be 


sound and pointed, these little volumes 
viewed as school-books leave very little to be 
desired, according to the English practice of 
reducing oral instruction to mere discipline. 
A painstaking passman too might, with one 
of these volumes in hand, dispense with a 
‘coach,’ and almost with that béte noire of 
his—a lexicon. 

It is fair to add that the editor holds up 
a sound standard of historical criticism 
in his introductions, by the employment of 
the supplementary sources, of which good 
examples are to be found in the figure of the 
τρικάρηνος ὄφις and in the translation of 
Pausanias’ account of the picture of Marathon 
in the Poecile Stoa. The grammatical notes 
appear on the whole admirable, Mr. 
Shuckburgh having a quick sense for moods 
and tenses. More advanced students would find 
his textual notes worth consulting, e.g. the 
defence of ἐξοδίῃσι in VI. 56, and of τε καὶ 
ἐδόθη in LX. 80,and would beinterested in the 
citations from Polybius passim : they will not 
however learn much from the editor's his- 
torical notes and criticisms, which at times 
indeed may mislead or puzzle young and old. 
To confine the instances to the notes on 
Book VI.: ‘ Ephesos’ p. xxx. is an obvious 
misprint for ‘ Ephoros,’ and 599 B.c. on 
Ρ. 243 should obviously be 549 B.c. (over- 
throw of the Medes): but 451 B.c. given as 
the date of the ‘so called Peace of Kimon,’ 
p. 207, suggests a grave doubt as to a 
possible confusion in the editor’s mind 
between the trace with Sparta of ¢. 451 B.c. 
and the supposed treaty with Persia, vari- 


22 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ously dated but never, I believe, assigned to 
451 B.c., the year before Kimon’s last great 
expedition to the East. It is very startling 
to be told that ‘from Aegina the first Greek 
commercial centre in Egypt, Naukratis, was 
established,’ and not less startling to find 
Megakles, the bridegroom of Agariste of 
Sikyon, represented as grandson of Megakles 
the opponent of Peisistratos, pp. 235, 236. 
Mr. Shuckburgh is not a safe guide in regard 
to the Alkmaeonidae ; he apparently thinks 
that Xanthippos by descent belonged to that 
family (p. xxxvi.). The notes on Athenian 
constitutional matters leave something to be 
desired. Olneis, p. 187, is only a misprint, 
but the remarks on the Kleisthenic reforms 
and on the position of Strategi and Archons 
are not adequate or correct; and the notes 
on the date of the Plataean alliance, p. 167, 
are unsatisfactory. The first note seems 
to incline to the conventional date 519 B.c. 
and does not fairly state Grote’s argument 
for 509 B.c. or thereabouts: the second note 
treats the conventional date as doubtful and 
gives practically Grote’s argument against 
it. To describe the Spartan kingships as a 
‘double monarchy ’ is obviously inexact, and 
courts of ‘international arbitration’ is an 
overstatement for the institutions of 
Artaphernes in Ionia. That the Ionian 
Amphiktyony was religious and had ‘ nothing 
in common with a political league’ (p. xiii.) 
is an aberration, which the note on p. 
89 partially corrects. The antithesis is, 
however, not strictly applicable. ‘Der 
Schwerpunkt des Alterthums ruhte in dem 
Gedanken dass politische und _ religiose 


Interessen zusammenfielen.’ 'This statement 
of Nissen’s is only unsatisfactory inasmuch 
as it takes the conscious antithesis of 
‘polities’ and ‘religion’ for granted in 
antiquity. 

We shali never perhaps get in English a 
satisfactory method of transliterating Greek 
proper names. Scholars at present have 
abandoned the old Latin equivalents and 
forms without venturing to the exact re- 
production of the Greek originals in English 
letters. The result is an extraordinary and 
mongrel nomenclature. All perhaps that can 
be expected of individuals is that they should 
be consistent in regard to each particular 
name. Mr. Shuckburgh should make up 
his mind between Skythians and Scythians, 
Cambyses and Kambyses, Darius and Darios 
(Dareios?), Aristides and Aristeides, and so 
on. Further, if he writes ‘ Herodotos’ he 
ought not to write ‘Olorus.’ ΄“ Histiaios’ 
and ‘ Hekataeos,’ ‘Odeium’ and ‘Olympeion’ 
belong to different systems of transliteration : 
‘Ajax’ and ‘Pollux’ come in strangely 
among the Greek forms generally adopted. 
In regard to translations, there is not much 
to find fault with, but ὑποθερμοτέρου is not 
well rendered by ‘somewhat bitter’ nor ἐξώγ- 
κωτο, ἐξωγκωμένοι by “ puffed out (up).’ 

It was superfluous to duplicate the note 
on λέγειν, p. 176. Deliune, p. 43, and 
Mytileneas, p. 239, are obvious misprints ; 
but on the whole, considering the great num- 
ber of different types employed and of refer- ὁ 
ences given, the accuracy of the printing 
is highly to be commended. 

R. W. M. 


HOLDEN’S LIFE 


Plutarch’s Life of Timoleon, with Introduc- 
tion, Notes, Maps, and Lexicon by the 
Rev. H. A. HoipEn. University Press, 
Cambridge, 1889. Pp. Ixxxv. and 274. 
6s. 


Dr, HoipeEn has already edited the lives of 
Themistokles, Nikias, the Gracchi, and Sulla, 
inamanner which has received high commend- 
ation in America, France, and Germany, as 
well as in England. The companion volume 
which has just been issued has all the merits 
of its predecessors, exhibiting sound scholar- 
ship, sobriety of judgment and the most un- 
wearied industry. The original authorities 
are throughout carefully compared and no 


OF TIMOLEON. 


later contributions to his subject seem to 
have been overlooked. The thoroughness 
and completeness of the work will be seen 
from a mere statement of its contents. 
After a pleasantly written preface, in which 
high praise is bestowed upon Mr. James 
Rhoades’s Z%moleon, there follows (1) the in- 
troduction of fifty pages on the primary and 
secondary sources of information which were 
accessible to Plutarch for his biography, and 
the proof, based mainly on a careful compari- 
son with the language and matter of Diodorus, 
that the chief authority used by the former 
was Timaeus ; (2) a chronological table of 
Sicilian affairs from B.c. 740 to 337; (3) 
the text (pp. 1—47); (4) explanatory notes 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 23 


(pp. 51—151); (5) critical appendix (pp. 
155—179), containing (a) an account of 
MSS. ; (6) a very full bibliography, and (c) 
various readings; (6) indices (pp. 182— 
274), (a) of matters, (ὁ) of authors cited by 
Plutarch, (6) of grammatical constructions, 
followed by a list of unusual words ec. 
which occur in the biography, and (d) a 
complete lexical index, in which five differ- 
ent marks are employed to distinguish 
words of special interest. 

Having stated the general character of 
the work, I shall endeavour, as far as I can, 
to fulfil the second duty of a reviewer, when 
he comes across a really good book, and 
that is to add any suggestions which may be 
of use in view of a second edition. 

The first point I would note is as to the 
arrangement: would it not be more con- 
venient to give at any rate the various read- 
ings under the text? It is a nuisance to 
have to refer backwards and forwards from 
text to notes and again from notes to read- 
ings and occasionally to index. Under the 
head of misprints I have noted the follow- 
ing: p. lvii. n. 99 for ὑὕπερπήνεσε read ὕπερε- 
πήνεσε; p. 12, 1. 5 for s.v. μή read 8.v. od; p. 
76 in note on ἀνατείνειν read ἐπανάτασις and 
-σεις for ἐπανάστασις and-ces; p. 219 add 
reference under δυνάστης ; 274, 1. 6 for are 
read ἅτε. With these may be reckoned the 
shp in p. 59, note on ili. 11 μήτε προσιόντα 
τοῖς κοινοῖς ἔτι ‘although he had not yet taken 
part in public business,’ which of course 
should be ‘though he was no longer taking 
part &e.,’ referring to his retirement from 
public life after his brother’s death. Here 
also may be mentioned the occasional incon- 
sistencies between the explanatory and criti- 
cal notes, or between the notes and index. 
Examples may be found on p. 83, where the 
preference seems to be given to Amyot’s 
rendering of ὀψόπωλιν, ‘vivandiére,’ but in 
the index the right rendering is given with- 
out alternative: xxvii. 1, ὃ τὸ μὲν €ros...mpods 
τὰς τροπὰς συνῆπτε τὸν καιρόν is rightly trans- 
lated in the index conectebat, but the only 
note on the passage is a reference to xxv. 4, 
where it is quoted as an instance of the 
meaning accedere : xxvii. 6 παρεγγυώντων ἄγειν 
is translated in the note ‘urging him to 
lead them on without delay,’ but in the 
index more correctly ‘to pass the word (of 
command) along the line’: viii. 3 in the 
text μέν is inserted with Sintenis?, but in 
crit. not. p. 170 good reason is given for its 
omission. 

Dr. Holden tells us that ‘ the latest recen- 
sion of Sintenis forms the basis of his text,’ 
but that he has himself exercised an indepen- 


dent judgment, availing himself both of Sin- 
tenis’s collation and also of that of an Italian 
MS. (M°). published by C. T. Michaelis. I 
think he is perhaps inclined to err in the 
same direction as Sintenis by being too 
‘sparing in the introduction of good conjec- 
tural emendations.’ Thus in iv. 3 Blass’ 
βαρέως δὴ φέρων seems required instead of ὃ έ, 
the sentence, though long, not being so com- 
plicated as to make Plutarch oblivious of its 
construction. Inv. 15 the MS. reading φωνάς 
τε δεινὰς kal κατάρας ἐπ᾽’ αὐτὸν ἀρᾶσθαι seems 
to need such an insertion as the προΐεσθαι of 
Blass. Inix. 1 Dr. Holden keeps σπεύδοντες 
ὡς TO πέλαγος διαπλέοντες ἐκομίζοντο παρὰ τὴν 
Ἰταλίαν, which he explains in the note 
‘making haste, as they were crossing the 
open sea,’ but the synchronistic tenses 
seem to imply a contradiction. How can 
they be coasting along at the same time 
that they are crossing the open sea? Inthe 
critical note Dr. Holden mentions the sug- 
gestion διαπλεύσαντες (1 suppose with the 
omission of ws), and himself suggests ‘si quid 
mutandum, ws διέπλευσαν, ut sensus sit post- 
quam celert cursu sunt emensi pelagus.’ Hither 
reading would do, but σπεύδοντες must be 
taken, I think, with ἐκομίζοντο. ix. 34 (the 
Corinthians thought it impossible to over- 
come the Carthaginians and the force under 
Hiketas) ἣ στρατηγήσοντες ἥκοιεν “ which they 
were come to take the lead of.’ Butcan the 
plural be used of all the Corinthians (πᾶσι 
just above)? Is not Madvig’s emendation 
συστρατεύσοντες necessary? xvi. 28 (the assas- 
sins employed by Hiketas who mingled with 
the crowd surrounding Timoleon) ἐγγυτέρω 
κατὰ μικρὸν ἐπεχείρουν. Dr. Holden translates 
this ‘propius accedebant ad rem aggredien- 
dam,’ but I do not see how the Greek will 
bear it. Surely we must read with Madvig 
ἐπεχώρουν. XXXVi. 1. 32 ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας ἱερὸν 
ἱδρυσάμενος Αὐτοματίας ἔθυεν, αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν 
οἰκίαν ἱερῷ δαίμονι καθιέρωσεν. No editor seems 
to have found any difficulty in the phrase 
ἱερῷ δαίμονι, but the epithet is very much out 
of place: Dr. Holden would hardly translate 
‘the Holy God’ with Grote. Plutarch re- 
ferring to the same circumstance (Jor. p. 
542 E, quoted here by Dr. Holden), says that 
he dedicated his house, not ἱερῷ, but ᾿Αγαθῷ, 
Δαίμονι, and surely that is what we should 
read here: ἱερῷ has slipped in by mistake 
from the line above. Dr. Holden has a very 
attractive emendation on the difficult pas- 
sage:xxx. 44 τῆς δίκης αὐτοῖς ἀπολογουμένης TH 
Τιμολέοντος εὐτυχίᾳ ἐπιτιθεμένης, for which he 
gives ἀπολεγομένοις τὴν Τιμολέοντος εὐτυχίαν 
and translates, ‘ punishment being laid upon 
them when they renounced T.’s_ success.’ 


24 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 


This would do admirably if spoken of the 
deserters who suffered at the hands of the 
Brettians the penalty due for their sacrilegious 
plunder of Delphi ; only, since it was T.’s good 
fortune which had so far saved them from the 
punishment due to sacrilege, I should prefer 
the literal ‘good fortune’: when they 
deserted, they put away from them this pro- 
tecting fortune. But could so strong a word 
as ἀπολέγεσθαι be used of those who were act- 
ing under orders from Timoleon himself (xxx. 
3. 25 and 42)? Certainly in their case the 
reading suggested by Bernardakis, ἀπομονουμέ- 
VOLS τῆς τ εὐτυχίας, would be more appropriate. 
Another emendation of Dr. Holden’s, ἐξ ἧς 
᾿εἰσέπλει (for ἔπλει) τὰ ἐπιτήδεια (xviii. 1), seems 
to be almost certain. On the other hand I see 
no reason for the suggested omission of τῶν 
πολιτῶν in xxiv. 1, ἐπιρρεόντων πανταχόθεν εἰς 
αὐτὴν τῶν πολιτῶν, Where the translation is 
‘by the continual stream into it’ from all 
quarters.’ But why should not Plutarch 
speak of ‘its citizens streaming into it from 
all quarters,’ whether we understand ‘its 
citizens’ of new-made citizens, or of the 
original citizens who were now returning 
from exile? 

I go on now to the explanatory notes. 
On Proem 1. 14 it would have been better to 
refer to Zeller, i. p. 836%, or some other 
history of philosophy, than to give Lang- 
horne’s confused and erroneous note on the 
εἴδωλα οἵ Democritus; and I think συμφέ- 
ρηται is hardly = accidant, but refers to the 
combinations of εἴδωλα which may present 
themselves to us. In 1. 6 is it necessary to 
understand ἐκείνων either of ‘those lives’ or 
‘the lives of them’? It is a long way from 
βίων, and may be more simply translated 
‘those men,’ like αὐτῶν in the next sentence. 
iv. 1. 5 ὃ ἵππος πληγῇ περιπεσών Means of 
course ‘ being wounded,’ as in the examples 
cited ; the translation ‘receiving a cut’ is 
ambiguous. vi. 2 ἵνα πράττωμεν δοκιμάσαντες, 
the note and index agree in the sense ‘com- 
probo’: is it not rather ‘that we may act 
after full examination’? the figure which 
follows bears upon want of discrimination in 
eating. vil. 3 while Timoleon was busy 
about the expedition letters came to Corinth 
from Hiketas μηνύοντα τὴν μεταβολὴν αὐτοῦ, 
is it right here to say that “ αὐτοῦ is used for 
the reflexive’? the clause is written from 
the point of view of the Corinthians. iv. 1. 
15 δεδιότες μὴ πάθοιεν οἷα καὶ πρότερον ὑπὸ τῶν 
συμμάχων ἀποβαλόντες τὴν πόλιν, is it neces- 
sary to follow Held in connecting ὑπό with 
ἀποβαλόντες Surely it is simpler to trans- 
late ‘fearing that they should receive from 
their allies the same treatment as before, 


when they lost their city.’ ix. 1. 17 λόγους 
τοῖς πραττομένοις ὁμοίους ‘proposals as bad as 
his proceedings.’ Is it not rather ‘of the 
same tenor as his negotiations with the Car- 
thaginians,’ 1.6. having for their object the 
exclusion of Timoleon from Sicily ? 7. 1. 20 
κοινωνὸν εὖ διαπεπραγμένων ἁπάντων ‘a part- 
ner in all his successes.’ I think it is better 
to take the gen. as absolute. x. 1.2 τί γὰρ ἂν 
καὶ περαίνειν ἀπειθῶν ; ‘for what would he gain 
by withholding compliance?’ rather ‘ what 
could he accomplish if he refused?’ x1. 1. 1. 
οἱ Καρχηδόνιοι τοῦ Τιμολέοντος ἀνηγμένου χαλε- 
πῶς φέροντες ἐν τῷ κατεστρατηγῆσθαι διατριβὴν 
τοῖς Ῥηγίνοις παρεῖχον, εἰ Φοίνικες ὄντες οὐκ 
ἀρέσκοιντο τοῖς δι ἀπάτης πραττομένοις, Dr. 
Holden takes διατριβήν with ἐν τῷ κατεστρατη- 
γῆσθαι (furnished amusement in their being 
outwitted); but is not the source of the 
amusement their indignation at being out- 
witted? I should therefore take χιφ. with 
et.k. Xi. 1. 27 ἐπιπορευόμενος ‘visiting,’ 
rather, as in the example quoted from Plut. 
Alex. c. 31 and often in Polyb., ‘going 
through the ranks.’ xiv. 1. ὃ ἐθεῶντο πολλὴν 
ἐν ἀσθενέσι τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις καὶ προδήλοις τὴν 
τῶν ἀδήλων αἰτιῶν καὶ θείων δύναμιν : here the 
note is “πολλήν... ἀσθενέσι. . -προδήλοις are all 
predicate-adjectives.’ It would be αἀππου 
to give a predicative force to προδήλοις : one 
pair of attributes ἀνθρωπίνοις καὶ προδήλοις 
are opposed to another pair ἀδήλων καὶ 
θείων. xvi. 1. 55 οἱ πεμφθέντες κατὰ τύχην 
πυθόμενοι μέλλοντα θύειν αὐτὸν ἧκον εἰς τὸ ἱερόν: 
here the note is ‘“as their good fortune 
would have it” to be taken with μέλλοντα 
θύειν not with πυθόμενοι, as the English 
translators suppose.’ Dr. Holden’s  stric- 
tures on the English translators are in 
general richly deserved, but here I think 
they are more in the right than he is. How 
can 1t be said that it was ‘their good for- 
tune’ which brought the assassins to the 
temple at this time, when it led to one of 
them being killed on the spot and the other 
at any rate failing in his aim? Dr. Holden 
refers to i. 1, but there is no more reason 
to translate κατὰ τύχην ‘ good fortune’ there 
than here, or in xxxi. 31, where it is rightly 
rendered ‘as it happened.’ It has much 
the same force as ἀπὸ τύχης (1. 52, below), 
which is rendered ‘forte fortuna, though I 
see no reason for adding that ‘it is to be 
taken with σωτηρίαν. Plutarch is continu- 
ally dwelling on the providential good 
fortune which accompanied Timoleon. In 
each particular case it is a seeming accident 
(κατὰ τύχην) Which contributes to the carry- 
ing out of the Divine will. xx. 1. 22, 
θαυμάζοντες τῆς θαλάσσης τὴν εὐφυίαν Kat TOV 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 25 


χώωριων τὴν κατασκευήν, ‘expressing their ad- 
miration of the convenience of the sea and 
the situation of the adjacent buildings.’ 1 
cannot think that these were so likely to 
have engaged the attention of the soldiers 
who were fishing, as the ‘productiveness of 
the sea’ (Blass) and the ‘construction of the 
forts.’ Just below they go on to speak of 
πόλιν τοσούτοις ἐξησκημένην καλοῖς, and in xxii. 
we are told how Timoleon razed to the 
ground the royal forts, not sparing them, 
as Dion had done, διὰ τὸ κάλλος καὶ τὴν 
πολυτέλειαν τῆς κατασκευῆς (here translated 
‘architecture’ by Dr. Holden). xxi. 1. 
20 ἀνατραπέντων : scil. ταῖς ψυχαῖς ‘losing 
heart.’ But is the word used in this sense 
by itself? Why not simply ‘being over- 
thrown,’ as in Plut. Pomp. p. 643 Kaicap 
τοῦτον ἀνέτρεψε καὶ κατέβαλεν ἢ xxv. 1. 21, 
μαινομένου παρ᾽ ἡλικίαν : Dr. Holden approves 
Amyot’s version ‘ plus téméraire que son age 
ne portait.’ It might have been well to 
support this by quoting other passages where 
παρ᾽ ἡλικίαν has the same force, as Plut. Vt. 
Ῥ. 181 (of the aged Fabius), ὁρῶν τὸν Φάβιον 
εὐρώστως Tap ἡλικίαν διὰ τῶν μαχομένων ὠθού- 
μενον. xxvii. 1. 17, λευκάσπισι : here we are 
told that ‘the Sacred Band of Carthage was 
armed with huge shields covered with 
elephant hides’; would it not have been 
more to the point to explain that shields 
were painted of different colours for the 
sake of distinction, and that there was a 
regiment of white-shields in the Macedonian 
army ? xxvii. 1. 23, συνιδὼν τὸν ποταμὸν αὐτοῖς 
ταμιεύοντα τοῦ πλήθους τῶν πολεμίων ἀπολαβεῖν 
ὅσοις ἐθέλοιεν αὐτοὶ μάχεσθαι : ““ὑπεαῦ the river 
was controlling for them how many they 
should single off from the entire host and 
engage at one time.” The middle (ταμιεύεσ- 
θαι) is generally used in this sense...The 
infinitive ἀπολαβεῖν depends, as an indirect 
object, upon ταμιεύοντα in the same way as 
after verbs of giving.’ I should rather 
translate ‘perceiving that the river por- 
tioned out their work to them and so cut off 
from the multitude of the enemy as many as 
they themselves might choose to fight with.’ 
For the construction of συνορᾶν with inf. cf. 
2 Mace. 4. 4, συνιδὼν ᾿Απολλώνιον μαίνεσθαι. 
In the passages cited in the note ταμιεύεσθαι 
is used because the agent portions out to 
himself : here it is the river which is sup- 
posed to do so to others. xxvii. 1]. 42, τῷ 
πάθει παρὰ τὸν ἀγῶνα καὶ τὸν ἐνθουσιασμὸν οὕτω 
διατεινάμενος : Dr. Holden translates π. τὸν 
ἀγῶντα “ because of the inward struggle.’ I 
should prefer to take dyéva in its ordinary 
sense, joining it with ἐνθουσιασμόν by hendia- 
dys, ‘raising his voice in his excitement 


Ἕλληνας, 


owing to the intoxication of the combat.’ 
xxxvii. 1. 19, ἐφ᾽ ἃς of σοφισταὶ διὰ τῶν λόγων 
τῶν πανηγυρικῶν ἀεὶ παρεκάλουν πράξεις τοὺς 
ἐν αὐταῖς ἀριστεύσας: here Dr. 
Holden refers to Isocrates ‘whose πανηγυρι- 
kos WaS an urgent appeal to the Greeks to 
combine against their common enemy the 
Persians’; but it could hardly be said that 
Timoleon had realized these hopes. Grote 
more appropriately speaks of ‘that which 
rhetors like Lysias had preached in their 
panegyrical harangues, that for which Plato 
sighed in the epistles of his old age—the 
renewal of freedom and Hellenism through- 
out Sicily.’ 

No two minds will be agreed as to the 
exact amount of notes required. I should 
have thought some unnecessary, while on 
the other hand there are points left unex- 
plained which might either cause perplexity 
to an ordinary reader or which at any rate 
would justify further illustration. Such are 
the account of the attempted suicide of Ma- 
mercus xxxv. 1. 34 πρός τι τῶν βάθρων δρομῷ 
φερόμενος συνέρρηξε τὴν κεφαλήν ; the change 
of construction in xxxv. 1. 22 ἧς μὴ προσ- 
άψαιτο μηδὲ κατακοσμήσειεν ; the antecedent to 
ὅθεν in xxxv. 1. 7; the way in which the 
mail-clad Carthaginians were impeded by 
their tunics xxviii. 1. 23; the force of γοῦν, 
ib. 1. 40; the asyndeton with εἶτα xxii. 1. 5 ; 
the odd phrase τὸ μὲν οὖν ἔτος ἱσταμένου θέρους 
εἶχεν ὥραν xxvii. 1. 1 ; ἐμβαλὼν εἰς τὸ πέλαγος 
vii. 1. 17 ; the distinction between τύραννος 
and δυνάστης ; above all the hopeless sentence 
xxii. 1. 17 foll, where I think the difficul- 
ties should at any rate have been more fully 
pointed out, 6... ὑπήκουε, without any previ- 
ous mention of invitation given. If emend- 
ation is despaired of, it would at any 
rate have been some slight solace to the 
reader to know that he had the sympathy 
of the editor in his just indignation at a 
writer, not being an Aeschylus or a Brown- 
ing, who could leave his ideas in such an un- 
developed state, 

One of the best features in the book is the 
lexicography ; see the excellent articles on 
φιλοχωρεῖν p. 51, ἀποθεωρεῖν p. 111. foll., 
dvareivew p. 76, προχειρίζεσθαι p. 259. Here 
and there the classification of meanings might 
be improved: thus the phrase ἀνηγόρευον ὑπὸ 
κηρύκων is given as an example of the use 
of ὑπὸ with active verbs = ‘owing to,’ p. 
269, and ἐμβαλὼν εἰς τὸ πέλαγος 15 given 
as an instance of the meaning hostiliter 
ingredi. 

As the index claims to be complete it may 
be as well to note the following omissions : 
ἄκρος Xil. 1. 44, γηράω 111. 1. 24, ἡλικία xxv. 1. 


20 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


23, ὠδή xiv. 1. 16, ἐφέλκεσθαι xix. 1. 33; and 
why is ὀστρειογραφής untranslated ? 

The list of unclassical words used by 
Plutarch (p. 196) needs revision: such 
words as παραλαμβάνειν, παράλογος are 
thoroughly classical. 


These are the gleanings which I have 
been able to pick up in my examination of a 
book for which the thanks of all lovers of 
classical literature are due both to Dr. 
Holden and to the Cambridge University 
Press. 

JosepH B, Mayor. 


ELLIS’S COMMENTARY ON CATULLUS. 


A Commentary on Catullus. By Rosrnson 
Ex.is, M.A., LL.D., Fellow of Trinity 
College, Oxford. University Reader in 
Latin Literature. Second Edition. (Cla- 
rendon Press.) 16s. 


A more than common interest attends the 
appearance of this book. It is in the first 
place the outcome of thirty years’ continuous 
labour, and as such it takes its place natu- 
rally in the short list of permanent classical 
works which have maintained for this 
generation the best traditions of English 
scholarship. Further, Mr. Ellis, who it is 
fair to conjecture has here closed, for the 
present at least, his series of works on this 
subject, is also the father of Catullian litera- 
ture in this country: and it is not given to 
many men both to initiate and to consum- 
mate for their own age a subject so large 
and worthy as the poems of the impassioned 
and divinely-gifted Veronese. 

In the Preface, which is new, Mr. Ellis 
traces the literary history of Catullus from 
the revival of letters to the present day. It 
is a chapter of extreme interest, having for 
its main object the vindication of the merits 
of the early Italian correctors of the text— 
an essay in short upon the theme that ‘ that 
age was best which was the first.’ On this 
subject Mr. Ellis speaks with an authority 
which it would be an impertinence in us to 
criticise. His remarks come as a timely 
counterblast to a since published eulogy of 
Sealiger, ‘who (‘by his Catullus ete.’) first 
taught criticism to walk in the road in 
which it should go’ and ‘reclaimed it from 
the hap-hazard guesswork’ in which ‘the 
Italians had been the great offenders’ (M. 
Pattison, Hssays, i. p.160—2). One wonders 
whether the essayist had overlooked the 
preface to Scaliger’s rather scrubby little 
edition (Geneva, 1577), in which ‘Deum 
testem laudo, ne integrum quidem mensem 
illis tribus poetis recésendis impedimus.’ 
This is a custom which our English editor 
happily has honoured in the breach. But 


when Mr. Eljis goes on to complain that 
‘for the recovery of the vera manus of 
Catullus disappointingly little has been 
effected since the Renaissance,’ we wish to 
suggest that the reason lies as much in 
the poet as in his critics. Non cuivis 
homint. The peculiar quality of Catullus’s 
genius offers unusual difficulties to the 
emendator, as a glance at the twenty-fifth 
or twenty-ninth poem will show. For 
Catullus never wrote save under the impulse 
of vehement emotion and he has hardly left a 
line that does not bear the impress of his 
passionate personality : yet at the same time 
he had all Wordsworth’s gift of using the 
commonest words in a far from common way 
and, like Wordsworth, he was content to 
draw his inspiration from ‘the common 
things that round us he’ 


fratresque unanimos anumque matrem 


and to strike the ἄφαντον φῶς of poetry 
from the crudest matter :— 


istos qui in platea modo hue modo illue 
in re praetereunt sua occupati. 


Suppose the latter half of such a line as 
‘haec atque illa dies atque alia atque alia’ 
had been mutilated beyond recognition, 
which of the critics would have been Catullus 
enough to supply the words we know the 
poet to have written? And, yet, what 
words could suggest the long procession of 
‘to-morrow and to-morrow and to-morrow’ 
better than this simple ‘alia atque alia’? If 
the critics had been more mindful of what 
Mr. Ellis happily terms the ‘inimitable 
spontaneity’ of Catullus, they would have 
been less prone to ‘madly thrust’ on this 
rare poet the coat of a bourgeois Horace, a 
blatant Ovid or a knowing Martial, and 
would not, on the strength of a quotation 
from one or other of these writers, have 
fathered upon him such readings as ‘ furta’ 
for ‘facta’ (23, 10), ‘ducentum’ for ‘disertus 
(12, 9), or ‘vividae’ for ‘ Lydiae’ (31, 13). 
One is glad to remember that a modern 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 27 


admirer of Catullus, who, if not a critic, is a 
poet, has not found the ‘ Lydian laughter’ 
of Sirmio ‘too learned an allusion’ in the 
last quoted passage. If ‘minuta’ for 
‘inimica’ (25, 12) is ‘the finest emendation 
which has been made in Catullus,’ it is a 
good instance of the limitations within which 
he can be emended with ‘certainty.’ One 
might therefore hesitate to apply the epi- 
thet ‘ certain’ even to the dozen or so con- 
jectures which Mr. Ellis accepts as final 
(p. xiv.), and suggest that those who deserve 
best of Catullus are not the ‘aucupes 
syllabarum,’ but rather the scholars who, 
like Schwabe, Schmidt and Mr. Ellis himself, 
have laboured to expound and illustrate what 
the poet certainly wrote. 

Mr. Ellis’ new edition runs to five hundred 
and sixteen pages as against four hundred of 
the first. Its significance is not primarily 
critical, because the editor’s view of the text 
remains practically what it was in 1878. 
He repeats his belief in the value of the Da- 
tanus and only in a very few passages does it 
appear that he proposes to alter the text of his 
critical edition. On 65, 2 he now accepts 
Munro’s ‘Catulle’ for ‘ Catullo’—a change 
surely due to the syntax: in 66, 92 he 
restores the MSS. ‘eflice cur iterent,’ with 
‘fulgeret’ as pres. subj.: 64, 23 the frag- 
mentary ‘matrum Progenies’ is adopted asa 
Grecism, ‘with a nature like your mother’s’: 
16, 34 Meineke’s ‘ Cieros’ for ‘Scyros’ is 
now admitted, and the same word is by a 
bold conjecture intoduced into 350, ‘cum in 
Ciero’ for ‘incurvo’ (MSS. incivium). The 
bulk of the new matter is to be found in 
excursus, discussing but rarely adopting the 
views of recent critics, in occasional expan- 
sions of the explanatory notes, and in the 
introductions to the poems, which are in 
many cases rewritten. The omissions, on 
the other hand, are few: eg. the excursus 
on 41, seeking to establish a legal allusion 
in the poem, is now given up. (May not 
the point lie in ‘non est sana’ 1. 712 
Insanire is sometimes used of extravagance 
in money matters: cf. Ter. Phorm. 4, 3, 37, 
‘a primo homo insanibat’: Pl. Mil. 755, 
‘insanivisti’: Liv. vil. 2, ‘quam ab sano 
initio res in hanc vix opulentis regnis tole- 
rabilem insaniam venerit’: and perhaps 
Theocr. 4, 4, λυσσῆν. So here: ‘ What, give 
a fright like that 10,000 HS.! insanit. Give 
her a straight waistcoat—and a looking- 
glass.’) And in 44 the old view, that Catul- 
lus caught his cold going to Sestius’s dinner 
—surely a frigid jest—is now abandoned, 
and the influenza is ascribed simply to the 
infection of his friend’s style. We may 


compare Ar. Acharn. 138: ἔπηξε τοὺς ποτα- 
povs...d7 ἐνθαδὶ Θέογνις ἠγωνίζετο. 

Mr. Ellis’s critical edition must almost 
have been passing through the press when 
the ‘ Criticisms and Elucidations’ appeared 
(1878), so that he could then do no more 
than report Munro’s views in brief excursus 
at the end of the volume. Jt now appears 
that Mr. Ellis but rarely adopts the conclu- 
sions of his great critic, to whose memory he 
here (pf. xi.) pays a just and generous tribute. 
In a few points Munro’s unrivalled scholar- 
ship has borne fruit : ex. gr. 48, 8, where the 
note on ‘ hilare,’ ete., is now omitted, οἵ. 16, 14 
on ‘ putidius’ : 67, 44, speraret : 68, 143, ‘nec 
tamen’: 66, 31, ‘an quod’: on 67, 34 ‘the 
valuable Brit. Mus. MS. a’ has now lost its 
epithet, cf. M. p. v.: 29, 21, ‘a comic 
formula,’ is now omitted, cf. M. p. v., (but is 
the argument saved ?): but on the larger 
battle fields, such as the integrity of 54, the 
circumstances of 67 and the relation between 
the two parts of 68, Mr. Ellis still declines 
to yield. On the last point it is interesting 
to note that two of the most recent editors, 
as well as Dr. Magnus, have joined Mr. 
Ellis’s side in regarding Allius and Malliusas 
one person. Of the critics who have written 
since Munro, it does not appear that any 
has pushed our knowledge of Catullus far 
beyond the point reached ten years ago, 
with indeed one notable exception. Mr. 
Ellis has already done justice in the pages 
of this Review to the merits of the Prolego- 
mena to the beautiful volume with which Β. 
Schmidt has recently (1887) enriched the 
Tauchnitz Library. One feels therefore a 
little disappointed that he has not given so 
prominent a place in his commentary as was 
to be expected to some of Schmidt’s leading 
conclusions, especially his account of the chro- 
nological order of the poems. Mr, Ellis’s own 
view will be found on five or six pages (xlv.— 
li.) grim with figures, from which, in some 
dismay, we turn to the lucid and (in our 
judgment) convincing account of Schmidt, 
who tells the story of the poet’s life with a 
glow worthy of the romance it really was. 
Schmidt also in some interesting remarks on 
Catullus’s literary position (p. lxix.) finds a 
special force in the phrase ‘saecli incommoda’ 
(14, 22) which Mr. Ellis hesitates to accept. 
Yet it seems to suit the context well, 
especially if the ‘malum pedem’ of this pas- 
sage is intended to carry on the hint already 
given in ‘impiorum’ (l. 7: cf. Mr. Ellis’s 
note), Catullus meaning to bid the ‘pro- 
fanum vulgus’ of poetasters to quit the holy 
ground on which they have intruded. Cf. 
Prop. iii. 1, 6, ‘quo pede ingressi,’ and 


28 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Mayor ad Juv. x. 6: ‘dextro pede concipis.’ 
Further, those who agree with Schmidt's 
view that infaceto rure’ (22, 14) and ‘ pleni 
ruris’ (36, 4) are illustrated by Cicero’s 
remark (Or. 161) on the elision of the final s 
as ‘ subrusticum,’ will feel surprised that the 
editor still reads ‘ beatu ’s’ (23, 37: οἵ. his 
note on ‘dabi’ 116, 8). 

Of Mr. Ellis’s many-sided erudition it is 
now unnecessary to speak: it has been long 
admitted that in this respect Catullus has 
been as fortunate in his English editor as 
Lucretius and Juvenal have been in theirs. 
We are not less struck by the judicial tone 
which dominates thiscommentary. Here are 
no traces of special pleading or parti pris. 
Both sides of every question are always 
stated with admirable candour and lucidity, 
and if the reader is ever tempted to dissent 
from Mr. Ellis’s conclusions, he does so on 
evidence supplied by the editor himself. To 
exemplify Mr. Ellis’s method we may cite an 
instance which is new to this edition. In 
17, 32 the MSS. agree in ‘chinea’—a local 
epithet, of which no trace seems to survive 
in modern Brescia. A Venetian writer, 
Zanchi (1531) quoted the verse with the 
reading ‘Cygneae, from ‘nonnulla haud 
contemnendae vetustatis exemplaria,’ ex- 
plaining it of the arx of Brixia called after 
its founder Cydnus, ‘quem Graeci Cycnum 
vocant’: and it appears from later writers 
—Rossi (1695), Gagliardi (1718)—that a 
hill near Brescia was called ‘ Cigno’ as early 
as the seventeenth century. Hence it is no 
wonder that Vossius and more than one 
modern editor have adopted the reading of 
Zanchi. But Mr. Ellis, who acts on the 
motto vade καὶ μέμνασ᾽ ἀπιστεῖν, has pursued 
the question for himself through a mass of 
recondite Italian literature and shows (1.) 
that Zanchi, the earliest authority for the 
name, does not vouch for the existence of a 
hill ‘ Cigno’ in his own day: (ii.) that it is 
unknown to his younger contemporary 
Bagatto (1566), an antiquary and a Brescia 
man, or to the earlier Capriolo (1500), whose 
‘Chronica de rebus Brixianorum’ makes no 
reference to ‘ Cigno,’ but several to ‘ chinnea.’ 
He therefore adheres to the MSS. reading, 
drawing the interesting conclusion that 
Zanchi’s learned support of his reading, 
perhaps his own conjecture, supplanted 
the real name, and instead of the reading 
being due to an actual hill, the seventeenth 
century Cigno is due to the reading. Simi- 
larly on 56 Mr. Ellis dissents from the view 
of all the commentators that the Cato there 
addressed is the poetaster alluded to by 
Ovid in terms that might seem to justify the 


tone of Catullus’s repellent verses, and identi- 
fies him with the Stoic statesman M. Porcius 
Cato. Τὸ defend this position he has to put 
together a chain of proof—lengthened and 
strengthened in the new edition—of which the 
acumen and research might compel assent, 
did not this view rest on @ priori evidence 
still stronger. For surely Mr. Ellis shows 
true feeling for the manner of Catullus, 
when he urges that in the ordinary view the 
poem lacks an adequate motive. Coarse 
though Catullus can be, coarseness with him 
is not, as it often is with Martial, the main 
object. It is not the mark at which he 
aims, but rather the feather that fledges his 
bolt, be it for hate or scorn or even for 
pathos, as in the fifty-eighth poem, of which 
‘the pity of it’ is surely the prevailing note. 
There was possibly something in the 
events of the day, now lost to us, which 
gave special point to these verses: mean- 
while we may be content to regard them, 
with Mr. Ellis, as an attempt to ‘score off’ 
a ‘rigidus Cato.’ We could have wished 
that a similar argument had weighed with 
Mr. Ellis in interpreting 49, where Catul- 
lus’s name is linked with that of another 
great Roman, Cicero’s. He regards the lines 
as eulogistic: but there is much to be said 
for those who feel that the ring of the whole 
poem is ironical. Just as in reading 56 
we feel that Catullus was far too much 
of a gentleman to exhibit himself exchang- 
ing merely ribald jests with an unprincipled 
scribbler, so here we believe that his sense 
of humour would never have allowed him to 
go down to posterity posing, awkwardly 
enough, hat in hand, as Cicero’s very humble 
servant. The poet and the orator must often 
have met, and as far as we can judge their 
relations can hardly have been very friendly. 
Catullus was the friend of Hortensius, 
Cicero’s rival: he was the lover of Clodia, 
Cicero’s enemy: he was the assailant of 
Vatinius, Cicero’s client. And though Mr. 
Ellis (p. xxxiii.—iv.) has made it probable 
that Catullus is not included in the ‘ canta- 
tores Euphorionis’ of Z'wuse. iii. 45, still 
Cicero’s well-known sneers at the νεώτεροι 
(Att. 7, 2) and ‘novi poetae’ (Or. 161) sufii- 
ciently indicate his attitude towards the 
school of which Catullus was the exponent 
and the pride. It may be fanciful to find 
in the ‘Romuli nepotum’ of v. 1 an allusion 
to the long struggle of the ‘ Romule Arpinas’ 
with Hortensius for the ‘regnum iudiciorum ’ 
(1 Verr. 35): but if Cicero’s name had been 
publicly.coupled with Catullus’s in an eulogis- 
tic poem such as this, it may be doubted 
whether the orator would have written as he 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 29 


has (Tusc. v. 63) : ‘adhue neminem  cognovi 
poetam ... qui sibi non optimus videretur.’ 
At best, there is a leer in the equivocal 
‘tanto. ...quanto’ (v. 6), and equivoque has 
no place in eulogy. 

There are other instances, however, where 
Mr. Ellis’s habitual ἐποχή seems to be carried 
to excess. Of these the more important 
have been long ago noticed by the reviewers 
of his earlier edition, and only call for 
remark now because they reappear stated 
with additional emphasis, though hardly, we 
think, supported by fresh proof. Mr. Ellis 
still holds that the poet’s praenomen was 
Quintus, and that he went to Bithynia in 
65 B.c. On the former point, he has re- 
examined the MS. evidence at some length 
(p. xi.), and concludes that the ‘Q’ of D and 
Pliny’s inferior MSS. may be traced to xii. 
cent. and may represent a genuine tradition. 
And these hypotheses outweigh with him 
both the negative evidence of G. O. and 
Pliny’s best MSS. which recognise no prae- 
nomen, and the positive evidence of Apu- 
leius and of Jerome, who has Gaius ‘ writ 
large,’ so completely that he still reads 
‘Quinte’ in 67, 12. This may pass. 
The bloom of Catullus’s ‘florida aetas’ 
will smell as sweet under Quintus as any 
other name. It is a different matter when 
we come to the Bithynian journey. This is 
the one definite episode in the life of Catullus 
that has come down to us, it is the mse en 
scéne of much of his most exquisite verse, it 
had doubtless a direct bearing on the com- 
position of the ‘ Attis’ and the ‘ Peleus and 
Thetis ;’ and if we follow Schmidt in think- 
ing that this appointment came as the 
answer to the prayer of the divine seventy- 
sixth poem, it gains fresh interest as dividing 
the life and writings of Catullus into two 
sharply contrasted periods. It is important, 
therefore, to be right about its date. Mr. 
Ellis’s view has been attacked, as is well 
known, by Munro, though on grounds some 
of which it is not easy to appreciate, (Crit. 
and El. p. 46-7.) For even if the ‘ sudaria’ 
of 12 were sent in 65 B.c. it does not follow 
that that poem was written in the same year, 
and Munro’s appeal to 58 begs the ques- 
tion of the date of that poem, which is inde- 
terminate. But Mr. Ellis’s chronology raises 
the question of the poet’s birth-year in a 
manner which seems to demand a fuller con- 
sideration than it has received. He admits 
that Catullus must have been born either 
in 87 or 84 B.c. Of these dates the latter 
is surely the more probable. It alone can 
be made to harmonize satisfactorily with the 
statements of the ancient authorities, it has 


the support of Munro and Prof. Sellar, and, 
in addition to thei arguments, it may be 
noted that it helps to explain Catullus’s life- 
long companionship with Calvus, who was 
born in 82. But if Catullus went to Bithy- 
nia in 65 he cannot have been born in 84. 
For the sixty-eighth poem, which precedes 
the Bithynian journey, must then have been 
written when the poet was at most eighteen, 
and it is inconceivable that a lad of that 
age, who was no prig either, could have 
written ‘tempore quo primum vestis mihi 
tradita pura est’ etc. (68, 15). Further, if 
this poem belongs to 66 B.c. then the earlier 
Lesbia-cycle must belong to the two years 
previous: and we are to believe that a 
country-bred boy of sixteen or seventeen won 
the favour of the first lady in Rome and then 
sang in lyric verse the praise of her ‘ whose 
dead songster cannot die’—a supposition 
which becomes only less incredible if the 
birth-year is put back to 87. Lastly it should 
be remembered that before Catullus went 
to Bithynia he had his head-quarters in Rome 
(68, 35), and a house of his own (‘ero’ 31, 12) 
at Sirmio, while his father seems to have lived 
at Verona (68, 27 : Suet. Jul. 93); and surely 
these facts suit a man of seven or eight 
and twenty better than a youth still in his 
teens. We find nothing in Mr. Ellis’s book 
we would so gladly see changed as his views 
on that Bithynian journey, unless it be this. 
Though he quotes, with apparent approval, 
the appreciative comment of a true critic on 
91,2: ‘in misero hoc nostro hoc perdito 
amore fore,’ he still describes 73, 6 ‘quam 
modo qui me unum atque unicum amicum 
habuit’ as ‘probably the most prosaic 
verse in Catullus.’ Far other to our feeling 
is the effect of these ‘duriusculi,’ these 
rasping syllables, which only Catullus can 
propine ‘flammeos medullitus.’ 

We have scarcely scratched the surface of 
the mine discovered by the noble labours of 
Mr. Ellis. Our wish is merely to offer a 
cordial and respectful welcome to a work of 
the first moment in classical literature. At 
the outset there seemed some danger of fall- 
ing into terms of extravagant eulogy in 
speaking of a book to which we owe so many 
hours of pleasure and profit: as it is, we 
have neared the opposite extreme. But a 
critic very properly patronizes a book which 
has taught him all the little he has gleaned 
of the subject, and in any case Mr. Ellis, 
after his thirty years’ ‘ fraternum sodalicium’ 
with Catullus, can afford to smile at the fret 
of a modern Suffenus, ‘the irresponsible, 
indolent reviewer.’ 

W. T. Lenprum. 


90 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


THREE ESSAYS ON ASINIUS POLLIO AS A WRITER. 


Untersuchungen zu Caesar u. seinen Fortset- 
zern: insbesondere tiber Autorschaft u. 
Komposition des Bellum Alexandrinum und 
Africanum, von Dr. G. Lanperar, Erlan- 
gen, 1888. 3 Mk. 


Tue aim of this very ingenious monograph 
is to prove that C. Asinius Pollio, the 
famous orator, poet and historian, is the 
author of the military diary which is 
included among the works of Caesar under 
the name of the Bellum Africanum ; that he 
is also the rédacteur of the remains of Caesar 
and his literary executor Hirtius, whose 
death at the siege of Mutina (Apr. 27, B.c. 
43) cut short his plans for the completion 
and final publication of the Corpus Caesari- 
anum. 

It would be impossible in the brief space 
at our disposal to give an adequate digest of 
the argument: but its general course may 
be indicated. It will be remembered that 
in the received editions Books i.—vii. of the 
De Bello Gallico are attributed to 
Caesar, Book viii. to A. Hirtius, the De Bello 
Civili (three books) to Caesar; and the 
supplements to the latter, viz. the Bellum 
Alexandrinum, B. Africanum, B. Hispaniense, 
appear under the name of Caesar. But 
even in antiquity the authorship of these 
last three was a disputed point (Sueton. Vit. 
Jul. ly.), some attributing them to Op- 
pius, some to Hirtius. It was Nipperdey 
who raised the question afresh in his 
Quaestiones prefixed to his edition of Caesar 
(1847), and sought to prove that B. G. viii. 
and Bell. Alex. were by Hirtius, to whom 
(and not to Oppius) the language of the 
Eypistula ad Balbum, prefixed to the former 
by its author, is appropriate. This epistle 
plainly shows what Hirtius’s design was, viz. 
to weave the Commentaries of Caesar into a 
connected whole and carry them down to 
the date of his death. Apart from the 
actual state in which the literary legacy of 
Caesar has come down to us, it is scarcely 
conceivable that Hirtius could have accom- 
plished his design in the short and busy 
period which intervened between Caesar’s 
death and his own. The facts of his con- 
sulate and his illness must be borne in mind. 
Nipperdey thinks that for Bell. Afric. and 
Bell. Hispan. he had done no more than to 
collect materials. 

This hypothesis, though most valuable as 
clearing the ground for further investiga- 
tions, was not in itself fully satisfactory. 


There are undeniable differences of style 
between B. Alex. and B. G. viii. which mili- 
tate against a unity of authorship. A 
distinct advance was made when it was re- 
cognized in part by Petersdorff, more fully 
by Schiller, that the depositions of eye- 
witnesses were incorporated in all parts of 
the work and that variety of styles is due 
to the variety of original sources. Schiller 
conjectures that Hirtius worked over these 
materials, without working them up into 
organic unity: it is the connecting and 
transitional chapters, he finds, which are 
stamped with Hirtian peculiarities. It is in 
reference to Bell. Alex. that Schiller formu- 
lates his theory. 

Here then Dr. Landgraf takes the ques- 
tion up. He takes, one by one, all the 
members of the Corpus Caesarianum: they 
reveal to his fine perception of style the 
touch of one, of two, and in one case (Bb. Alex. 
ii—xxxiii.) even of three hands. He has 
made the remarkable discovery that C. 
Asinius Pollio was the eyewitness and 
original authority on whom Hirtius relied 
for those parts of the war in which he had 
not himself been engaged; and that he, as 
the next to Hirtius in Caesar’s intimacy, 
undertook to complete, in outline at least, 
the literary project which fate had not 
allowed his friend to accomplish. The Sell. 
Africanum he published exactly as he had 
made it over to Hirtius. Its style, if the 
text be rectified, is much better than critics 
have allowed. 

The evidence is partly external, partly 
internal. (a) While no ancient writer con- 
nects the name of Pollio with the authorship 
of the supplements to Caesar’s work, he is 
mentioned by Suetonius (/.c.) as a somewhat . 
severecritic of the Commentaries: ‘parum dili- 
genter parumque integra veritate compositos 
putat.’ He did moreover write a History of 
the Civil Wars himself (Hor. C. ii. 1). He 
had served in the African war himself; had 
also been governor of Further Spain from 
the year B.c. 45, so that he may well have 
furnished Hirtius with information upon the 
Spanish events narrated in Bell. Alex. xlviii. 
—lxiv. He was in a position to supply from 
personal knowledge—conformably with his 
severe veracity—a discreditable fact in B. @. 
viii, 23, 3—6, 47, 48, 1—9, which Caesar 
had suppressed in its right place, vil. 75. It 
may be doubted if any other Caesarian had 
similar qualifications for the task. (6) The 
internal evidence’ of diction, &e. is the 


᾿ THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 31 


strongest. In spite of the ravages of time, 
enough has survived of Pollio’s composition 
by which the theory may be tested: especially 
three letters to Cicero, Ad Fam. x. 31, 32 and 
33. We know from the Dial. de Oratoribus 
and Quintilian that his style admitted 
archaic and poetic elements, and even collo- 
quialisms. Examples are (1) portendo, in the 
Corp. Caes. only in B. Afr. 82, 2, and in Lp. 
ad Fam. x. 32. 5. (2) In the B. Afr. the 
following poetical expressions, swppetias ire, 
tristimonia, sauciis decem factis: (3) nullum 
vestigium ab aliquo discedere, Ad Fam.x. 31, 
6., B. Afr. 73, 3. Dr. Landgraf certainly 
makes out a strong case for Pollio as author 
of the Bell. Africanum: besides style and 
diction, the absence of partisan unfairness, 
as in the treatment of Cato’s character, is 
given in evidence. The very faults of the 
work—its haste, triviality and want of 
historical perspective—may be accounted for 
if it was a soldier’s diary, not a history. 

The main objection to the theory will be 
this. Why is Pollio never mentioned in the 
Commentaries, although he distinguished 
himself so much in the field (Plut. Caes. 52) 2 
For the same reason probably which led him 
to grudge to the Caesarian remains that 
effort which might have given them an 
artistic uniformity and unity which they 
lack. He had his own literary ambition, to 
make himself the historian of the First Civil 
War ; and he had no mind to forestall him- 
self by a work, of which two-thirds of the 
renown would belong to Caesar and Hirtius. 
So he studiously dissociated his reputation 
from their work, while he was too loyal to 
neglect to make it worthy of theirs. But it 
must be confessed that it is difficult to 
understand how it was that his disguise 
baffled all detection by critics, ancient or 
modern, until Dr. Landgraf pierced it. We 
understand now that Prof. Wéolfflin has in 
preparation an edition of the Bellum Afri- 
canum, to be published, missis ambagibus, 
under the name of C. Asinius Pollio. Dr. 
Landgraf promises us (p. 78) a future dis- 
cussion of the contribution made by Pollio 
to the Bellum Civile: pointing out for the 
present the Pollionisms in &. C. iii. 108-112, 
the opening of the Alexandrine war. No 
student of the diction of Caesar can afford to 
neglect the contributions to the subject 
which enrich Dr. Landgraf’s pages, e.g. the 
valuable note on postquam with subj., p. 20. 

But it is not true that the historic infin. 
is used by Cicero ‘only in the Verrines and 
the Letters’ (p. 41): v. Cluent. §$ 59, 177 ; 
Pis. § 69; Phil. xii. ὃ 1; Acad. pr. ii. §§ 
1G; 


Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio 
in den bei Cic.ad Fam. x. 31—33 erhaltenen 
Briefen mit Berticksichtigung der bet Quin- 
tilian, Seneca, etc. tiberlieferten Fragmenta, 
von J. H. Scumatz, 

Wolfilin, Archiv, vi. pp. 85—107, ‘ Ueber 
die Latinitit des Asinius Polio.’ Miinchen, 
Beck, 1889. Mk. 1.40. 


A review of Dr. Landgraf’s treatise would 
be incomplete without a short notice of these 
two essays, the former of which discusses 
the diction of Asinius Pollio as it appears 
in the Letters, the latter that of the 
Bell. Africanum. In their general con- 
clusions they are at one: that Pollio (or 
Polio as Wolfflin prefers to call him) did not 
give allegiance to the Latinity of Caesar and 
Cicero, but consciously copied other models, 
and stands nearer to the speech of the ar- 
chaising Varro, and the abrupt and some- 
times colloquial Sallust. Surely it is curious 
that he himself criticised the archaisms of 
the latter—‘Asinius Pollio in libro quo 
Sallustii scripta reprehendit ut nimia pris- 
corum verborum affectatione oblita’ (Suet. 
gramm. 10), while he allowed himself the use 
of such archaic words as the following 
pollicitatio, commeatus ‘a way,’ superesse 
‘survive,’ guiritare (which has lived on in 
popular speech to become Fr. crier, Ital. 
gridare), palpari, all cited by Schmalz : 
suppetiae, grandis ‘large,’ rapsare, tristt- 
monia,; satagere infatuo conpotare (these three 
perhaps old-fashioned colloquialisms), cited 
by Wolfflin. It seems possible that in his 
maturer work Pollio was less unwilling to 
part with some of the angularities of his 
style, though still the declared foe of Cicer- 
onianism gone mad (Quint. x. 2. 17, si quid 
modo longius circumduxerunt, iurant ita 
Ciceronem locuturum fuisse). The task 
which at present occupies Landgraf and the 
others is to prove that Pollio forms a link, 
in the development of Latin prose, between 
Varro and the historians Livy and Tacitus. 
They may afterwards hope to consider the 
growth of Pollio’s own style in the frag- 
ments preserved to us. 

Both writers show exhaustively that there 
is alike an archaic and a poetic element in 
the style which we are considering: our 
author uses communibam, a form which 
‘Cicero would have barely touched in kid 
gloves’ (Wolffl. p. 88), an zsolated form (if 
we can trust our MSS.) which Pollio may 
have picked up from the sermo castrensis ; 
he uses vectigaliorum, and a few other 
anomalous forms. It is further shown that 
he deals in colloquialisms, such as the use of 


32 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


compound words in the sense of the simple 
forms (commendare se fugae, ex promerito, 
inibi, depugno =pugno). Lastly, in his earlier 
work at any rate Pollio cannot be acquitted 
of the charge of occasional slovenly writing. 
The abl. absolute is carelessly used: B. Afr. 
24, 2, Pompeio adveniente oppidani usque eo 
passi propius accedere, donec cet. ; and even 
Ad Fam. x. 31. 4, nam quibus commeatibus 
invito illo per illius provinciam legiones 
ducerem? Κ΄. also B. Afr. 63.5. But for the 
sake of distinctness, such a thing is not un- 
known even in Cicero: v. Roby, 1247. Again 
we find a sort of Homeric construction in 
relative clauses, B. Afr. 97. 3, Leptitanos 


quorum bona Juba diripuerat et ad senatum 
questi...sua receperant. Other idioms, such 
as dubito with acc. and inf., opto with inf., 
studeo with ace. and inf. (Schmalz, 26-—28) 
seem to be due to the influence of the older 
poets. Butis not the pregnant use of in 
(Ad Fam. x. 32. 4, in victoria = 51 vicisset) 
commoner in Cicero than Schmalz implies on 
p. 201 Γ΄ my note on Cluent. ὃ 32. 

An examination of the facts adduced in 
these two treatises will lead, I think, to the 
conclusion that even in his Letters Cicero was 
much more of a purist, than Pollio in his 
most studied efforts. 

W. Y. Fausser. 


NETTLESHIP’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO LATIN LEXICOGRAPHY. 


Contributions to Latin Lexicography. By 
Henry Nettiesuip, M.A., Corpus Profes- 
sor of Latin in the University of Oxford. 
Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889. 215. 


Tuts book, like the larger work of Pro- 
fessor Key which appeared a year ago, 
contains the portion of a Latin lexicon 
which was more or less advanced when 
death in the former case, and disinclination 
or other engagements in Professor Nettle- 
ship’s case, interfered to prevent the comple- 
tion of the undertaking. Necessarily they 
appeal not so much to the general public, 
even of classical scholars, as to the makers 
of lexicons or to special students, but both 
were worth publishing, and will doubtless 
contribute to improve the Latin dictionaries 
of the future. Both lay great stress on the 
early Roman literature, both are the work 
of independent scholars, and both testify to 
a great deal of thought and labour. Profes- 
sor Key no doubt aimed specially at setting 
forth his peculiar views of etymology. Pro- 
fessor Nettleship has a bit of a bias for 
another side of the investigation. He has 
paid great attention to the Latin glossaries, 
and among numerous other recondite ad- 
ditions has quoted many of them in the 
articles which form the present work. Such 
sources have some sort of value for lexicons 
on a large scale which profess to give the 
materials, important or not important, for 
the history and signification of a Latin word. 
I have myself a poor opinion of Latin glos- 
saries: they are evidence of very uncertain 
character—uncertain in their age, in their 
author, in their ultimate origin; they may 


be witnesses to a regular use and meaning, 
they may record merely the momentary 
fancy or whim of a speaker or writer, or 
they may embody a misunderstanding of the 
reporter or a blunder of a copyist. And 
even the better authenticated productions of 
Latin grammarians are so uncritical, that I 
think them often much overrated testimony. 
Unless we have the context and the circum- 
stances, a reported use of a word requires 
special corroboration from general analogy 
or probabilities before it is entitled to any 
considerable weight. The desperate eager- 
ness of scholars to throw some fresh light 
on obscure or disputed matters seems to me 
often to result in a very factitious import- 
ance being attributed to the dustheaps of 
antiquity. 

About two-thirds of the present volume 
is occupied with the letter A ; the rest con- 
tains articles on various words, which for 
some reason or other attracted Professor 
Nettleship’s attention. He tells us he has 
included nothing in this volume which, in 
his own judgment, is not a necessary im- 
provement of Lewis and Short’s Dictionary, 
either by rearrangement of the matter, or 
by novelty in explanation, or in instances, 
or by correction of references, or by the 
supply of omitted words. Possibly he has 
in this adopted the right principle, but the 
result is that one never quite knows whether 
any article should be regarded merely as a 
supplement and correction of Lewis and 
Short, or really representative of what Pro- 
fessor Nettleship considers a proper and 
adequate treatment of the word. However 
the articles are always scholarly and clear, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 33 


and many exhibit a very rational and suit- 
able arrangement of the matter. I have no 
intention of detracting from a general ap- 
preciation of the book, if I notice a few 
cases where I think Professor Nettleship has 
slipped. Most of these small points relate 
to legal expressions. 

On p. 19 he says the title de accessionibus 
of Dig. Book XXII. includes uswrae and 
Jructus. On the contrary the title contains 
all three words, and accesstones are neither 
usurae nor fructus. Below he speaks of 
accessio temporis as if it were more technical 
than it really is, and defines it as ‘the 
period of time reckoned in order to make up 
the year required to get the benefit of the 
interdictum utrubi, Gai. TV. 151.’ But a year 
was not required for this purpose : the ques- 
tion was simply which of the litigants had 
been longer in possession within the period 
of a year immediately preceding the suit. 
On p. 252 he asks what is the meaning of 
adprehendit in Dig. XL. 7,1. 2 pr. qui statu 
liberi causam adprehendit. The meaning is 
simply ‘he who gets the position of a statu 
liber (slave contingently freed).’ On p. 203 
he translates annalis ‘annually recurring,’ 
but in two of the instances quoted the word 
refers to the period, not the recurrence, of 
a year. So Varr. 1. 1. 1, 27, where Varro 
speaks of the annale tempus quod sol circuitu 
suo fintt. In the other, Dig. XV. 2, 1. 1, 
an action is said to be temporaria id est 
annalis, ὁ.6. 1 must be brought within one 
year from the right of action accruing. On 
p. 263 Professor Nettleship misunderstands 
in some degree the nature of book-obliga- 
tions (htterarum obligatio), and thus after 
rightly explaining arcaria nomina (Gai. III. 
128) as ‘debts contracted by the actual 
payment of ready money to the debtor,’ 
hesitatingly adds, ‘without any evidence 
given in writing.’ But the presence or 
absence of evidence in writing does not con- 
stitute the difference between these classes 
of debts. <Arcaria nomina were doubtless 
often accompanied by documentary proof, 
although their obligation rested on the actual 
cash payment, not on a bond or on a 
book entry. In the other case the entry 
in the books of the creditor, or of both 
creditor and debtor, was the very ground of 
the obligation ; and for this reason, because 
the loan or sale or other transaction, which 
may have preceded, was by the agreement 
of the parties merged in the book entry, the 
former debt, if any, was extinguished, and 
the only debt now existing was that created 
by the book entry, and was attended only 
by the incidents belonging to that. The 

ΝΟΣ XXX. VOL, IV. 


nearest English analogy is where previous 
transactions involving debts and credits are 
summed up and superseded by a bill of ex- 
change for the balance, drawn by one and 
accepted by the other party. 

On p. 440. dispunctio is said to mean 
‘rewarding according to deserts,’ and dis- 


punctor, ‘one who allots payment.’ This 
is, 1 think, a mistake. Dispungere is ‘to 
check’ or ‘examine accounts’ and is so 


used in the Digest: e.g. dispungere est con- 
Jerre accepta et data, Dig. L. 16, 1.56: ef. XL. 7, 
1. 6, 8 7; XLII. 5, 1. 15, 81; and the same 
meaning appears to me clearly applicable to 
the passages quoted from Tertullian (who, 
be it remembered, was probably a lawyer 
himself), Apol. 18, suscitatts omnibus ab 
initio defunctis et reformatis et recensitis ad 
utriusque meriti dispunctionem, * All the dead 
from the very beginning being raised and 
reformed and reviewed for an account to be 
taken of their good or evil deserts,’ and so 
in Mare. V.12; IV.17. Dispunctor in the 
inscriptions (in some we have Disp. only) is 
I presume simply a public accountant. 

On pp. 68 and 456 we have the old word 
Jatis, found in adfatim, explained as ‘ weari- 
ness.’ I long ago suggested that it meant 
‘yawning,’ cf. fatiscere, fatigare. 1 doubt 
also whether my account of noxa and ob- 
noxius (see Introduction to Justinian’s 
Digest, pp. 132—134) has fallen under Prof. 
Nettleship’s attention. He seems to me to 
invert the true order, when he gives noxa the 
meanings (1) punishment (2) offence (3) harm 
instead of (1) harm (2) guilt (3) amends. I 
cannot see why he is not contented with the 
old and perfectly easy derivation from nocere, 
nor why he suggests that obnoxius is not 
from nocere and ποῦ, but from a verb ob- 
mectere which he has found in Festus and a 
glossary. I take obnowius to be formed from 
ob noxam and to have passed naturally from 
the specific meaning of ‘ liable for a hurt’ to 
the general meaning of ‘liable.’ 

Attribuere in ofticial or technical language 
is used of giving an order on a person to pay 
money, the person being put in the accusa- 
tive and the money (sometimes) added in the 
genitive. This usage Prof. Nettleship has 
noticed. But he has misunderstood the 
analogous use of pecunia attributa, ‘money for 
which an order is given,’ e.g. Cic. Verr. 1. ὃ 
13 pecunia attributa numerata est, where he 
strangely takes attributa as ‘paid over.’ 
What then is nwmerata? The most illus- 
trative passage is Verr. 111. ὃ 165, cum posita 
esset pecuni apud eas societates unde erata 
attributa, binis centesimis faeneratus est, 
deinde permultis civitatibus pro frumento 

D 


94 


nihil solvit omnino, ‘when the money was 
lying with the companies on whom an 
order was given him for its payment, he 
lent it out at two per cent. and paid to town 


ABBOTT'S LATIN GATE AND 


The Latin Gate: a First Latin Translation 
Book. By Epwin A. ΑΒΒΟΤΊ, D.D., Head 
Master of the City of London School. 
London. Seeley & Co. 1889. 3s. 6d. 


In this book, which we may call Dr. 
Abbott’s legacy to classical education on 
retiring from the active practice of his pro- 
fession, we have what is really an educational 
experiment of some interest and novelty. 
The author recognises most truly, as the 
leading defect of the teaching of Latin in 
middle class schools, that the short time 
available for the study is most wastefully 
spent on Composition and Grammar, with 
the result that at the end the pupils cannot 
translate easy Latin at sight. The cure for 
this evil he would seek in more rapid and 
economical methods of teaching to read the 
language : less grammar learning and prose 
writing, which, useful enough for those who 
mean to pursue a larger scheme of study, 
lead practically to nothing for those who 
leave off at sixteen : and the insistence, in all 
public examinations, on translation at sight 
as the most searching and useful test. Of 
these lines of improvement the last depends 
on the examining bodies; the second is 
obviously in the control of the schools. This 
book is intended by Dr. Abbott as a con- 
tribution towards the achievement of the 
first, namely the improvement of method in 
teaching boys to read Latin. 

The first part of the book is practically 
an attempt to help the mastery of the 
vocabulary, by keeping the  beginner’s 
attention on the identity of Latin words 
with the corresponding French and English. 
All teachers no doubt do this at times, and 
in a desultory way: but Dr. Abbott well 
suggests, in his second and third chapters, 
- how it may be done more systematically. If 
these chapters are used, as the author plainly 
means, not as lessons to be learnt (which 
would be cram of a dreary kind) but by the 
teacher as a guide to method, and by the 
pupil only for reference, we think the result 
would be excellent. The Latin vocabulary 
would be mastered more easily and securely : 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


upon town nothing whatever for the corn 
they supplied.’ (This use of attribuere is 
noticed in Mommsen’s Staatsrecht, ii2 444. 
n. 2.) 


ἘΠῚ Jie ROBY, 


POSTGATE’S SERMO LATINOS. 


and there would be something like a real 
understanding gained of the Latin element 
in French and English. 

The next part is called ‘ How to translate 
a Latin sentence’: and is virtually an 
attempt to give help in the first real problem 
of the reader of Latin, the solving of the 
structure. Dr. Abbott begins with the 
usual rule, Find the verb, and then proceeds 
to deal practically with the chief common 
difficulties in relation to the verb. One 
suggestion here is valuable : that the student 
should drop this rule as soon as he can, and 
‘begin to translate mentally straight on, 
making allowance for the Latin way of 
putting things.’ A propos of this, there is a 
good deal about order: perhaps (as Com- 
position is out of the question) rather too 
much ; but we are glad to see a reference to 
Professor Hale’s brilliant essay on the Art 
of Reading Latin, from which Dr. Abbott 
quotes an amusing illustration of the import- 
ance of orderin a long sentence. Professor 
Hale takes a passage from Livy, and shows in 
detail how the apparently arbitrary disregard 
of the logical order is really due to the fact 
that the order is everywhere natural. When 
this is perceived the student gets great 
encouragement to try translating ‘mentally 
straight on’: and nothing helps so much to 
rapid reading, z.e. to reading Latin as a 
language. 

The rest of the book is reading lessons 
graduated in length with full notes. First 
proverbs and short sentences: then longer 
sentences: then a book of Phaedrus, and lastly 
a book of Caesar. The main novelty here is 
that the sentences are carefully chosen to be 
either striking sayings or anecdotes. For 
ourselves we much prefer the anecdote for 
the young beginner. Many of the striking 
sayings simply bore the boy, who has no ex- 
perience of life to make him appreciate them : 
others disgust him by their medicinal flavour : 
and many lose much of their effect and even 
their meaning without the context. What 
can a boy care for ‘vox populi vox dei,’ ‘ars 
longa, vita brevis,’ ‘silent leges inter arma,’ and 
the rest of them? But he takes some 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 90 


interest in Martial’s statement (for example) 
that ‘he would rather have a tank than a 
vineyard at Ravenna’ (where water is bad 
and scarce) : and complains that an innkeeper 
‘had cheated him by selling him neat wine, 
when he had ordered wine and water. Or 
again he will relish Catulus’ reply to the bad 
speaker who asked him whether he had not 
moved the feelings of the audience in his 
peroration: ‘Certainly,’ said the cruel 
Catulus: ‘nobody I should think was so 
hard-hearted as not to feel great pity— 
for your speech.’ In Dr. Abbott’s second 
and third series there are many excellent 
anecdotes like the above, which tide the 
learner over the initial flats and bars of Latin 
reading. 

We may note a few slips—though, as the 
first edition is only issued to teachers, for 
comment and correction, they have perhaps 
already been emended. 

The note on accent (ὃ 64) is confusing : 
syllables were surely retained because they 
were accented, not because the accented syl- 
lable was significant. 

The phrase ‘national instinct’ in § 67 is 
not happy: the syllables were simply modi- 
fied by wear and tear in spoken use. 

§ 70, plaisir for plaire. 

§ 76, on (in the phrase on dit): the learner 
would think on confined to that use. 

§ 91, peignant from pingentem is not really 
a ease of transposition: the y-sound which 
has supplanted the g is still after the n. 

§ 103, the form mien should be mentioned 
as well as mon. 

§ 131, iv. fingere misprint for pingere. 

§ 185, ‘The subject is sometimes the action 
implied in the verb’ is not a clear account of 
sie ttur. 

But these are trifling blemishes in what is 
an interesting, and likely, if properly used, 
to be a valuable schoolbook. 


Sermo Latinus ; a Short Guide to Latin Prose 
Composition. By J. P. Posteate. Pp. 90. 
Macmillan. 2s. 6d. 


Tus unpretending little book, consisting 
as it does of some sixty pages of advice and 
discussion, followed by forty-one exercises, 
we commend most heartily both to those 
who have to teach, and those who wish to 
learn, Latin Prose Composition. Without 
professing to be exhaustive, Dr. Postgate 
has succeeded in being, in the best sense, 
practical: and we feel sure that both 
teachers and learners will find his remarks 
helpful and suggestive. 


The first chapter is a brief statement of 
the educational value of Latin Composition. 
We agree with the author’s main point, the 
value in training of that recasting of a 
thought which translation into an ancient 
language necessitates. Perhaps he is claim- 
ing too much when he says that ‘ controver- 
sies would often dissolve into emptiness’ if 
disputants would put them into Latin 
Prose. It would often do as well to translate 
them into plain English : and even Romans, 
in spite of their ‘ direct and concrete expres- 
sion, were not exempt from the common 
frailty of quarrelling about nothing. 

The two remaining chapters, however, 
constitute the valuable part, and the main 
part, of the book. The first one (chap. ii.) 
is addressed to teachers. The author touches 
with great felicity the first great difficulty 
of the teacher, when he feels that a version 
offered ‘won’t do,’ but is unable to say 
why. Dr. Postgate justly says he must 
neither disregard this feeling nor think it 
infallible. It is perhaps a pity that we are 
not more decisively warned that the teacher 
should never be content till he has analysed 
and made definite this instinctive criticism. 
Thesuggestions on retranslation are good and 
stimulating. But the most striking part of 
this chapter is the passage on class-teaching of 
Latin Prose: and Dr. Postgate’s hints will, 
it may be hoped, really help many a reader 
to succeed in this most difficult branch of 
the art, in which the writer is evidently 
a master. Particularly would we refer 
teachers to the admirable example, too long 
to quote, where he discusses and translates a 
difficult passage from Froude. 

The third chapter is addressed mainly to 
the pupil, but will be found very useful for 
teachers too. With the remarks on the use 
of dictionaries we heartily agree. In deal- 
ing with the difference of expression in the 
two languages the main point is well brought 
out and excellently illustrated, that the 
Latin always clings close to actual concrete 
fact. Indeed this principle forms so large 
a part of what the student has to learn, that 
we would gladly have had more detail on 
this head, even at the cost of some of the 
remarks about order. It is to this prin- 
ciple that is really due the objection of 
Latin to what we may call the ‘ picturesque 
alias’ (like ‘ the conqueror,’ ‘the iron Duke,’ 
‘England’s greatest general’) which Dr. 
Postgate ascribes to the poverty of Latin. 
Latin is quite able, of course, to render all 
these aliases of ‘the Duke of Wellington’ ; 
but, as they are mere flourishes, its practical 
instinct refuses to have them. 

D2 


90 


The expansion of ‘ Balbus is building a 
wall’ is amusingly and cleverly done, and 
will be found instructive: but a playful 
protest may be permitted against the por- 
tentous sentence into which it finally grows, 
lest the learner should be beguiled into 
taking it as a model. 

In treating of order, we should have liked 
to see more about the variety due simply to 
the desire of pleasant sound, and the wish to 
avoid dulness. Perhaps also more thorough 
analysis and illustration might have been 
given of the common English tendency to 
what we may call ‘concealed oratio 
obliqua’: the tendency, that is, to present 
what is really the view or the suggestion of 
one of the actors in the narrative as part of 
the narrative itself. For example: 

‘The general did his best to restrain the 
ardour of his troops. Over-haste was likely 
to be as fatal as delay. The plot was 
hardly ripe: and to venture at once would 
easily end in losing all. Accordingly he took 
measures, ete.’ 

The second and third sentences here are 
really of course the general’s, and in Latin 
must be oblique. The instance from Gibbon 
which the author gives on p. 36 (an admir- 
able piece and well-discussed) is less likely 


PLESSIS ON GREEK 


Traité de Métrique grecque et latine, par 
F. Puessts. Paris, Klincksieck. pp. 
X00, eo, Li, 


Tuts little work forms one of the useful 
series in which Riemann’s Latin Syntax 
and some others noticed in this Review have 
already appeared. It is based, in a great 
measure, on the Métrique grecque et latine of 
Havet and Duvau (1888), the Métrique of 
Gleditsch in Iwan Miiller’s Handbuch, and 
the well-known works of Lucien Miiller and 
Wilhelm Christ. But the matter is well 
digested, and the subject is set before the 
reader with clearness and precision. After 
some preliminary ‘notions générales,’ the 
author proceeds to treat of the construction 
of the hexameter and pentameter in both 
languages, and then of the various iambic and 
lyric metres. In a series of short excursuses 
he deals with the position of words in Latin 
verse, the relative proportion of dactyls and 
spondees in the first halves of hexameters 
and pentameters, the prosody of archaic 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


to mislead the pupil than the passage we 
have written above, which is one of a common 
kind in modern English. 

Dr. Postgate’s little book is certain to 
require soon a new edition. We should like 
to suggest that he should enlarge its scope, 
so as to give us more detailed hints from his 
own varied and carefully recorded experi- 
ence on many points where he is now con- 
tent to quote from other well-known works 
on composition. Might we also suggest, 
that in this case he should suppress the 
rather scornful note on p. 6, against the 
proposed substitution of French and German 
for Classics in the case of certain students ἵ 
The grounds for this proposal lie far outside 
a mere comparison of the languages: and 
they commend themselves, as Dr. Postgate 
must be aware, to many who are earnest 
believers in the Classical tongues as educa- 
tional instruments. Even if it were not 80, 
the modernisers would not be converted by 
the bald assertion that ‘it will not be long 
before Englishman will (except for special 
reasons) as little think of learning either 
[French or German] as they do now of 
learning Dutch or Welsh.’ 

AL: 


AND LATIN METRE. 


Latin including the Saturnian metre, and 
the law, commonly known as Meineke’s, of 
the division of Horace’s odes into quatrains. 
The correctness of such a division he im- 
pugns. ‘There is lastly an Index Rerum so 
constructed as to include a sufficient explana- 
tion of the grammatical and metrical terms 
employed. 

The scientific method which characterizes 
good modern handbooks, even when the 
subject is versification, has something in it 
rather chilling to the young student. It 
is formidable to see tabulated, as here (p. 80), 
the exact percentage of elisions in Catullus, 
Propertius, and the rest ; or to have caleu- 
lated decimally the permutations of dactyls 
and spondees admitted by those poets in the 
open feet (pp. 281 8φῳ.). With some minds 
the result might be a distaste for efforts at 
verse composition, like the disinclination 
felt for reading Shakespeare after a study of 
end-stopt lines and weak endings. But the 
process is inevitable, and in the manual 
before us the thing is certainly done well. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 37 


One advantage of treating Greek and 
Latin metres side by side is that the con- 
tinuity of development pervading them can 
be better seen. The way the pentameter 
forms a connecting link between the κατὰ 
στίχον and the lyric metres (p. 100), the 
gradual restrictions on its last syllables 
(p. 116), and the slow but subtle influence of 
accent (pp. 295-6), are clearly brought out. 
The subject of accent, indeed, as affecting 
and affected by metre, is an interesting one, 
and one which has not received in English 
text-books the attention it deserves. Dis- 
carding the use of the terms arsis and thesis, 
as being now generally understood in a sense 
exactly contrary to their original one, the 
author adopts a notation (p. 3) slightly dif- 
fering from that of Havet and others to 
designate the temps fort, or stress, as distin- 
guished alike from quantity and the tonic, 
or true, accent. The first of these three 
he makes equivalent to the modern 
accent (p. 34), while the last was 
simply a momentary raising of the pitch, a 
‘note musicale plus élevée.’ Such lines as: 

Italiam fato profugus Lavinaque vénit 
show how unaffected the metrical stress was 
by the accent proper. The fact no doubt 


remains that in the last two feet of the 
hexameter we often find the stress or temps 


fort and the accent coincide, as in ‘rura 
manebunt,’ ‘lumine caelum,’ and such like 
common types. But Havet (Métrique, p. 60) 
will not allow this to have been intentional, 
and he decides that ‘le réle de |’ accent est 
absolument nul dans la versification latine.’ 
Weil and Benloew, in their Théorie générale 
de 1 Accentuation latine (a treatise unfortu- 
nately now out of print), come to much the 
same conclusion (p. 241), on the ground of 
the tendency of the Latin accent to coincide 
with the stress (the Romans having for 
example no words accented like Αἰσχύλος), 
and of stress again to coincide with quantity. 
In the long run accent carried the day, and 
made possible the metres of the Christian 
poets. 

Not the least valuable part of the book is 
that in which the writer treats of archaic 
prosody (Hacurs. iii.), especially as affecting 
the scansion of Plautus. The book is care- 
fully printed, and we have noticed very 
little to add to the list of errata. On p. 
222, in the first line of note 2, ‘sur la 
finale’ should be ‘sur Jinitiale,’ and the 
last number on p. 279 should be 42 instead 
of 41. We think the work will be found 
very serviceable in the higher forms of 


classical schools. 
J. H. Lupton. 


VIERECK’S OFFICIAL GREEK. 


Sermo Graecus quo Senatus populusque 
Romanus magistratusque populi Romani 
usque ad Tiberi Caesaris aetatem in scriptis 
publicis ust sunt examinatur : scripsit 
PauLus VIERECK, Dr. Ph. Gottingae, 
mMpcccLxxxviil. (5 Mark). 


THE subject of this careful and scholarly 
prize-essay (‘ praemio regio ornata’ ) may at 
first sight appear to be of narrow range, but 
the reader will find it opening out in various 
interesting directions. When Rome became 
mistress of the Eastern world, she had to 
treat with her subjects in their own tongue, 
and that tongue was Greek: Graecia capta 
Serum victorem cepit. In the West, indeed, 
the Roman official might usually employ his 
native Latin, although probably Greek was 
the channel of communication between 
Rome and Carthage in the times of Hannibal ; 
while in Magna Graecia we find Senatus- 
consulta inscribed in Greek, and not in Latin, 


late in the first century a.p. (C.l.G. 5836, 
5838, 5843). But in Greece proper, and 
over those large tracts of the world which 
had been Hellenised under the Diadochi, 
Greek was the official language: even in 
Palestine the Roman decree or treaty was 
inscribed in Greek as well as Latin (p. xii). 
The writer first addresses himself to the 
task of collecting and arranging the texts of 
all the inscribed documents which come 
within his scope. These are set out in full, 
the readings being subjected to careful 
criticism. First come ten Letters from 
Roman magistrates, the earliest being 
Flamininus’s letter to Cyretiae (circ. 196 B.c.) 
and the latest (p. 47) a letter of Cn, Lentulus 
Augur to Nysa (s.c. 1). Next follow eleven 
Senatusconsulta, most of them in excellent 
preservation and of considerable length, their 
number being swelled by several more in 
the Addenda. A third class is formed by 
the Treaties. None of these documents are 


88 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


new, and many of them have long been 
familiar. But they gain greatly in interest 
by being thus grouped together, and the 
student of Roman history may perhaps find 
in this collection some documents that have 
escaped his notice amid the scattered liter- 
ature of epigraphy. Some of the Senatus- 
consulta were first published by me in Part 
111. of the Greek Inscriptions in the British 
Museum, and if this Essay had then lain 
before me it would have saved me much 
trouble in restoring the texts. The collec- 
tion might have been greatly enlarged, had 
the author wished to proceed further than 
the reign of Tiberius. Imperial letters 
addressed to the Greek cities are being 
brought to light in almost every excavation. 
Some are the merest ‘ notelets’: but Greek 
servility inscribed them all. At this day 
however they have a certain value, if only 
in the chronological data furnished by their 
headings. Few however are so curious as 
the document discovered at Acraephiae last 
year (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 
xii, 1888, p. 510), which gives us a verbatim 
report of the high-flown address of the 
Emperor Nero to the Greeks at Corinth, in 
proclaiming the liberty of Hellas, Nov. 28, 
4.0. 66. 

Our author, after placing the documents 
before us, proceeds next (pp. 55 foll.) to 
criticise their language, under the various 
heads of orthography, inflexions, syntax, 
vocabulary and style. There is no doubt 
whatever that these Romano-Greek docu- 
ments received their Greek dress at Rome, 
and were transmitted in Greek to the Pro- 
vinces. In grammar and diction they differ 
but little from each other, or from the 
Greek commonly spoken by educated persons 
in that day. Latinisms, indeed, of idiom 
abound, but the number of Latin words 
bodily transferred into the Greek tongue is 
remarkably small: nearly every Roman 
official term received at once its official 
Greek translation. We must remember 
that it was as essential for a Roman states- 
man, even under the Republic, to speak 
Greek as for an English public man to-day 
to speak French (ep. Livy, xlv, 29); it was 
usual for Greek envoys to address the Senate 
in their own tongue. The extant letters of 
the Roman politicians afford an amusing 
evidence of the extent of their acquaintance 
with Greek. Flamininus’s Greek style is 
crude, involved and obscure ; his diction is 
commonplace, like that of Polybius (p. 75), 
and not free from Latinism and _ bad 
grammar. Mark Antony, whom Cicero so 
unmercifully banters about his rhetorical 


studies, affects a verbose and grandiloquent 
manner, not always strictly grammatical 
(p. 77). ‘The literary revival of the 
Augustan age is reflected in the elegant 
Greek of Augustus’s own letters (p. 78): and 
very curious ones they are, as illustrating 
Provincial life and government. 

In the course of this discussion of points 
of style, some interesting illustrations occur 
of the change of meaning which some Greek 
words underwent in later days: e.g. ἀνωτέρω 
‘before’ of time, or ‘above’ in a book; 
καταχωρίζειν ‘to put on record in a book’ ; 
φιλάνθρωπος of kindness generally ; καταλογή, 
‘distinction,’ ‘notice,’ ‘honour’; etc. These 
pages (72 foll.) are of value to the student of 
Hellenistic Greek. I doubt the statement 
made on p. 56 about the revived observance 
of the iota adscriptum in the Augustan age 
giving rise to its insertion where it was not 
wanted. Long before the Augustan age, in 
purely Greek documents of the time of the 
Diadochi, such otiose insertion of the iota 
was not;unknown: Mr. Roberts agrees with 
me in reading ὁρκῷσ[αι] in line 20 of the 
Lygdamis inscription. Viereck does well, 
however, in declining to call forms like 
ἀπήλθοσαν, εἴπασαν ‘ Alexandrian,’ since they 
are found equally in other parts of Greece 
(p. 59). 

A separate discussion is reserved (p. 85) 
for the Greek version of the Marmor 
Ancyranum, which departs so far from 
ordinary standards of grammar and style, 
that Nissen believed it to have been made 
from the Latin by a Gaul of Ancyra. 
Viereck suggests that the inferior style of 
this document may readily be accounted for 
by its length and the great complexity of 
its contents. These afforded more oppor- 
tunity for the exhibition of ignorance than 
the much more simple and formal documents 
we have hitherto been discussing. He con- 
cludes that the Greek of the Marmor 
Ancyranum was drafted by a Roman official 
in Rome itself, and was transmitted to 
Galatia, by order of Tiberius upon the 
request of the people of the province, to be 
inscribed on the walls of temples dedicated 
to Caesar-worship. 

The examination of so many authentic 
inscribed documents qualifies the author to 
proceed yet further, and to discuss the 
specimens of Senatusconsulta and official 
letters which occur in Polybius, in Josephus 
and in the Book of Maccabees. Internal 
evidence satisfies him that Polybius had 
before him Greek originals of public docu- 
ments (p. 90). Josephus is convicted of 
gross carelessness, and something worse, in 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 39 


his handling of Senatusconsulta and official 
letters borrowed by him from the collections 
of others. But there is no ground for doubting 
the substantial accuracy of the documents 
themselves, which were mostly borrowed 
from Nicolaus Damascenus, though little 
trust is to be placed in their headings and 


the titles assigned to the Roman officials in 


them ; these are due to the unscrupulous 
pen of Josephus. 

The essay is made the more useful by 
some good indices. I have noted only one 
glaring misprint; p. 7, line 11: templum 
Veneris Ephesiae, for Dianae. 


E. L. Hicks. 


PLOIX’S LA NATURE DES DIEUX. 


La Nature des Dieux. Par CHARLES PLOIX. 


1888. 10 fr. 


OnE opens this book, which consists of only 
470 pages, with a pleasurable expectation, 
first because it is written by a Frenchman, 
and therefore it is not likely to be dull or 
obscure, and secondly because of the title. 
The student of the classical religions might 
hope that he will here find—not one more 
theory added to the endless number concern- 
ing the origins of those religions—but a work 
which we in England especially need on the 
actual religious ideas of Greece and Rome in 
the historic periods. But the whole book is 
a theory of origins, and its title is an illu- 
sion; it is also an astonishing, perhaps an 
expiring, effort of the familiar school, in 
which we have all been trained, of philolo- 
gico-physical mythology. In his preface M. 
Ploix disclaims style and aspires merely to 
science. But the book has of course the 
usual French excellences of style, piquancy 
of expression and lucidity, while as regards 
science it reminds us of Mr. Lang’s treatise 
on ‘the Gladstone Myth’: only M. Ploix 
means his book to be taken very seriously. 
It is in fact nothing less than a key to all 
the polytheistic religions ; for what he dis- 
covers of the Greeks and the Romans he 
maintains must be true of the whole human 
race. Thus at the outset we are startled 
with the enormous assumption—with the 
proof of which he does not trouble himself— 
that ‘la marche de l’intelligence humaine a 
du étre partout la méme.’ 

Plurality of causes is excluded at a single 
stroke. Ancestor-worship, the sense of the 
Infinite, personification of moral ideas, and 
other possible explanations, cannot be applied 
to any religion of any branch of the human 
race if they are found not to apply to the 
religion of Greece and Rome. If one could 
believe this, one would at least save oneself 
trouble. With this advantage to start with 


M. Ploix works out the great single idea 
with which his book is inspired, namely, that 
all the Greek and Latin divinities except 
Zeus are personifications of the twilight. 
He has at least maintained his originality, 
for the twilight is the one department of 
nature that has not been over-run by his 
fellow-mythologists. We have become very 
familiar with the apparitions of the sun, the 
moon, the wind and the lightning, etc., in 
the forms of Apollo, Dionysos, Hera, Athene, 
and many others, but Apollo, Demeter, Pro- 
serpine, Eros and Ares as dawn-divinities of 
twilight are novel characters. M. Ploix is 
very contemptuous of solar theories, and 
holds some very peculiar views about the 
sun. He thinks that primitive man paid 
very little attention to it, and did not regard 
it as the cause of light, and supposed it was 
a very slow thing, and that therefore he 
could not have personified it as a fast-run- 
ning hero such as Apollo or Hermes. ‘Le 
soleil ne parait avoir été anthropomorphisé 
chez les Grecs et les Latins.’ This is a 
strange statement in the face of the worship 
of Helios at Rhodes and elsewhere, and his 
very human activity in many Greek legends. 

However, though he disregards all solar, 
lunar or astral explanations, he maintains 
as an indisputable view that the divinities 
were personifications of celestial phenomena: 
in the first place, because Devas and Divi 
and Zeus contain a root meaning bright: 
therefore they must be sky-divinities or 
deities of light. We are familiar with this 
argument through Professor Max Miiller’s 
writings ; but modern philologists by no 
means accept this conclusion. For the same 
root may be used for the expression of two 
independent though cognate ideas: of two 
derivatives from the same root the one may 
denote a ‘ bright being,’ the other the ‘bright 
sky,’ and yet the bright being need not be a 
personification of the sky. And after all the 
Greeks did not speak of Divi but θεοί, and 


40᾽ THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


what else this word means besides ‘ gods’ no 
one yet knows, though M. Ploix thinks he 
does. 

A second argument that M. Ploix urges 
is the way in which he supposes polytheism 
arose from fetichism—for he admits promis- 
cuous fetichism as a prior stage. There is 
some truth and ingenuity in his argument 
that terrestrial fetiches, because they mostly 
could not move about, were sooner detected 
and deposed, and became mere material 
things; while the celestial fetiches were 
very active and could maintain the illusion 
better: more myths were therefore told 
about them and remained long after the 
fetich-belief was exploded ; thus when no 
other active and intelligent agency was 
admitted except that which was human or 
like human, these persistent myths which 
seemed to speak of active agency in the 
heavens gave rise to the belief in personal 
agents existing there, the deities of the 
Greek Pantheon. 

This exposition is the sanest part of the 
book but, as it implies that the personal 
divinities were not likely to be evolved from 
terrestrial ‘fetiches,’ there are obvious ob- 
jections to it: the chief one is the very 
primitive belief in the earth-goddess and in 
divinities that clustered round her or ema- 
nated from her. Gaia—whom M. Ploix 
scarcely notices—was a real person with 
oracular gifts, who certainly was evolved 
from that largest of all terrestrial fetiches, 
the earth. And in spite of M. Ploix, divi- 
nities such as Cybele, Demeter, Dionysos, 
had far more aftinity with Gaia than they 
had with twilight. 

Another proof he urges in favour of the 
exclusive supremacy of the celestial person- 
ages is that mankind always worship the 
cheerful and benevolent, not the dark and 
malign power. Does M. Ploix consider 
lightning and snakes as cheerful and bene- 
volent, or has he failed to notice that some 
old Greeks worshipped Python before Apollo 
killed him, and that the Arcadians wor- 
shipped unpersonified thunder and lightning: 
that Briareus-Aegaeon in Euboea and Tityos, 
whom Apollo had to slay for his wickedness, 
are not known to have been benevolent 
powers, and are yet known to have received 
worship? He will not admit the existence 
at any time of animal-worship in Greece ; 
but if the primitive Greeks never worshipped 
animals, they yet exposed themselves to the 
gravest suspicions of having done so. Main- 
taining then that it is only the celestial phe- 
nomena that could give birth to divinities, 
he finds that the only department of nature 


in which he can conveniently plant his 
divinities is the twilight. And certainly the 
twilight answers the purpose of explaining 
all the Greek deities and heroes quite as 
well as the sun; or rather, all the depart- 
ments of nature, each in its turn, serve 
almost equally well the purpose of physical 
allegory. 

But the twilight has especial advan- 
tages for M. Ploix’ argument: itis beautiful, 
and all the deities are beautiful, except 
Hephaestos, whom M. Ploix considers to be 
a twilight ‘manqué’: it is combative, that 
is, the morning twilight prevails over the 
powers of darkness, and the gods also are 
combative, using spears on occasion, which 
are the shafts of the morning light. But 
the subtlest proof of all is the proof derived 
from the fact that the twilight is the ‘com- 
mencement’ of the day, and M. Ploix finds 
that nearly all the Greek and Latin deities 
were deities of ‘commencement.’ One might 
doubt whether one is allowed to style a god 
thus, because the worshippers happened to 
invoke him when they were beginning some- 
thing serious. But M. Ploix can plead this 
much in favour of his theory, that most of 
the deities and heroes did something and in- 
vented something, and therefore must have 
‘commenced ’ doing and inventing it. 

His observations of nature are innocent, 
though irrelevant; but his playing with the 
meaning of names is more serious. ᾿Αθάνατος 
as a predicate of a god does not mean ‘im- 
mortal,’ but ‘not dead,’ as a primitive Greek 
might remark of his dawn-deity when he saw 
a fresh twilight in the sky. With quite as. 
much right the Greek might have called 
himself ἀθάνατος when he got up in the 
morning. Scarcely any epithets of divinities 
will he allow to be moral epithets originally : 
bonus optimus he would translate by physical 
terms (perhaps bonus: = duonus = double-= 
twilight, the twilight being double and 
most deities having a double aspect, one 
good and one bad: optimus = brilliant, root 
‘op’). 

He does not see that to suppose of the 
distinct Greek and Latin nations that they 
could not spontaneously predicate moral 
terms of their deities is to suppose them to 
be in a state of extraordinary intellectual 
savagery. 

Then he is abnormally prone to the usual 
error of his school of imputing to the ordi- 
nary terms of Greek and Latin writers pre- 
historic and allusive senses: for instance, 
Eros is twilight because among other reasons 
Sophocles in his Antigone in the famous ode 
calls him ἀνίκατος, and M. Ploix does not 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 41 


seem to recognise that Sophocles is writing 
of the invincible power not of twilight but 
of love. He maintains that Ἵμερος, whom 
Hesiod places in Aphrodite’s company, does 
not mean ‘desire,’ but ‘day’ = ἡμέρα : for he 
does not seem to know that the personifica- 
tion of abstract ideas is earlier than Hesiod, 
and that a capital letter does not radically 
change the meaning of a Greek word. (We 
might as well regard the ἵμερος ὀαριστύς and 
πάρφασις in the girdle of Aphrodite as 
twilight-powers. ) 

Again, he has the audacity to suggest 
that ’Avrépws meant the ‘counter-twilight,’ 
although this is a word and figure that was 
invented very late—some thousands of years 
after the word Ἔρως could have possibly 
meant the twilight. His indifference to 
chronology is also shown in his indiscrimi- 
nate use of texts, Orphic literature being 
quoted as a proof of primeval ideas, and 
Albricius’ treatise De deorum imaginibus 
being referred to as a classical authority. 
Of archaeology he appears to be absolutely 
ignorant, and his few references to archaeo- 
logical evidence are worthless, But his 


worst offence is his philology, which is 
perhaps more unscientific than that in which 
any modern writer of his school has ever 
indulged. ‘Pallas’ and ‘pallidus’ are con- 
nected ‘because Greek and Latin are kindred 
languages’; Ἔρως is a derivative from the 
root ar = ‘brilliant,’ a theory which appears 
to be possible only if one disregards the 
stern laws of vowel-change, or if one makes 
no distinction between a long and a short a. 

The mythologic theory and the philology 
of M. Ploix are antiquated: and the method 
of argument on which the whole book 
depends—the deduction of all the deriva- 
tive qualities of the divinity from one single 
original idea—is wholly unconvincing. He 
ignores the fact that a nation as it progres- 
ses may predicate new functions and powers 
of its divinities independently of the original 
idea ; or may adopt from some alien religion 
divine personages fully-formed and endowed 
with a complex moral nature which, for those 
who adopt them, has no connection at all 
with any physical phenomena. 


L. R: FARNELL. 


SOPHOCLES’S GREEK LEXICON. 


Greek Lexicon of the Roman and byzantine 
Periods from B.c. 146 to a.p. 1100, by 
EVANGELENUS APOSTOLIDES SOPHOCLES. 
New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 
1887. £2 2s. 


A FULL notice of the above work must 
include some account of the life and char- 
acter of its author. Professor Sophocles was 
born at.Changaranda, near Mount Pelion in 
Thessaly, in 1807. He entered the mon- 
astery of Mount Sinai as a student and was 
connected with it several years during the 
Greek revolution (1821-28), living chiefly in 
the mother-convent at Cairo. He evidently 
cherished pleasant recollections of these early 
years, and maintained relations with the 
Sinaitic convent to the close of his life. He 
came to the United States under the 
patronage of a Foreign Missionary Society 
(A.B.C.F.M) in 1829, and after studying at 
the Academy at Monson, Mass., entered 
Amherst College, but did not stay through the 
regular course. He taught in Hartford and 
was assistant in the Yale College library at 
New Haven. In 1842 he became tutor in 
Greek in Harvard College and served in that 


position until 1845, and from 1847 to 1859. 
In 1859 he was appointed adjunct professor 
of Greek, but in the next year he was trans- 
ferred to the University Professorship of 
Ancient, Byzantine, and Modern Greek, in 
which chair he remained until his death in 
December 1883. He began early to publish 
text-books for students of Greek. Most 
known among these are his Greek Grammar, 
Romaic Grammar, Catalogue of Anomalous 
Verbs and History of the Greek Alphabet. His 
life at Cambridge was singular and striking 
to eccentricity. He never married, and lived 
a secluded life, using two rooms for all 
purposes, and often acting as his own cook 
and house-keeper. He partook of his simple 
meals on the very table which served him 
as a desk for the writing of this monu- 
mental JZewicon. His behaviour towards 
strangers, especially his own countrymen, 
was not always attractive and he came to 
have the reputation among them of being 
crabbed and cynical, but those who had the 
privilege of a more intimate acquaintance 
with him found him cordial and tender- 
hearted. His characteristic as a scholar was 
penetration. He seemed to see at a glance 


42 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


what cost others time and labour in ac- 
quiring, and so, although he was not versed 
in German and not acquainted with the 
results of German research in Philology 
except as reproduced in English and Latin, 
the extent and accuracy of his scholarship 
was not inferior to that of the German 
masters themselves. The surest evidence of 
this is the work before us. 

This work was first published as vol. VII. 
(new series) of the ‘ Memoirs of the American 
Academy’ under the title of ‘Glossary of 
Later and Byzantine Greek.’ In 1870 it 
was republished by the author in an enlarged 
form under its present title, and again in 
1887 by the President and Fellows of 
Harvard College in a memorial edition. Of 
this edition, a note by the editor tells us 
that it differs from the second impression 
of 1870 by the correction of nearly two 
hundred evident inadvertencies and ‘a few 
instances of additions.’ The Lexicon is 
then substantially as Sophocles left it. As 
appears from the title itself, it is a work of 
a very different character from Du Cange’s 
Glossarium mediae et infimae Graecitatis. 
First of all, the periods of the Greek 
language covered by the two works are not 
the same. Du Cange’s period extends 
apparently down to his own day (1688). 
Sophocles does not attempt to deal with 
writings later than 1100 a.p. the date of the 
capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders. 
Although the starting-point in both is the 
same, it dees not appear that Du Cange 
makes any use of the LXX and of the New 
Testament or other early Christian writers ; 
so that altogether the fields of the two works 
coincide only for a space of 500 or 600 years. 
Sophocles refers to over 550 titles; Du 
Cange to nearly 1100, of which however a 
large number are titles of brief works 
separately mentioned which appear in 
Sophocles’ list unified under titles of collected 
works of authors. Thus Sophocles’s 550 
titles represent by no means a proportion- 
ately lesser body of literature. Again, of 
Du Cange’s 1100 titles 650 were edited at the 
time he wrote his Glossary and the re- 
mainder were consulted in MS. form. Since 
so large a portion of his field was inaccessible 
to scholars generally, Du Cange as a rule 
gives complete quotations for illustration of 
his definitions, while Sophocles in general 
simply refers to passages of published works. 
Hence Du Cange saves the student the labour 
of searching through whole sections in order 
to verify references, but loses in point of com- 
pactness and clearness. Sophocles is able to 
compress into the same space a larger 


number of definitions and references than 
Du Cange. We turn to a word like λύσις 
and find in Du Cange two senses attached to 
it: (1) rescripta et responsu imperatorum, 
supported by seven citations, and (2) recon- 
ciliatio ecclesiae, supported by one. In 
Sophocles the same word is found in nine 
different meanings: (1) loosening, with one 
reference, and idiom λύσις κοιλίας, (2) divorce, 
two reff., (3) absolution, two reff., (4) barley- 
meal, two rett., (5) resolution of a long syllable 
to two short ones, two reff., (6) omission of 
conjunction = asyndeton, one ref., (7) rescrip- 
tum, four reff., (8) seminal emission, one ret., 
(9) permission, leave, one ref. The common 
word ἀφορίζω is not found in Du Cange, but 
its radical meaning is given under the deriv- 
ative ἀφορισμός as censurae ecclesiasticae 
species communionis privatio, with three dis- 
tinct citations and a passim reference to the 
Synodical Decrees of the Greek Church. 
Sophocles in treating the word gives the verb 
separately with the following senses, each 
abundantly supported by references: (1) to 
separate, (2) to separate and cut out, (3) to 
excommunicate = ἀκοινώνητον ποιεῖν, (4) to put 
in the ἀφορίστρια (a sort of dungeon in 
monasteries); and in addition he treats 
separately of the following derivatives, 
altogether omitted by Du Cange: ἀφόρισμα, 
ἀφοριστικός, ἀφοριστικῶς, ἀφορίστρια. In the 
treatment of this latter word there appears 
another feature of Sophocles’s work as com- 
pared with that of Du Cange, viz. the 
methodical arrangement of the various 
definitions and a general progress from the 
generic to the specific, and from the etymo- 
logical to the historical sense. Perhaps 
another common word of the Byzantine 
period will illustrate this difference. For 
σήκρητον (σέκρετον) Du Cange gives the 
meanings: (1) secretariwm aedis sacrae, (2) 
secretarium forum tribunal juridicum. 
Sophocles is more methodical as follows : 
(1) secret, (2) privy chamber, (3) office, apart- 
ment of an office, (4) an association (Porph. 
Cer. 6). Very notable is this difference in the 
word εὐαγγέλιον. Both lexicographers give 
it eight different senses, but an examination 
shows that those given by Du Cange are 
within a narrow range, whereas Sophocles’s 
treatment proceeds on a regular method and 
covers all the usages of the word, as the 
following summary of the treatment will 
make plain. Du Cange: (1) evangelium, 
Novum Christi Testamentum, (2) liber ecclesiae 
Graecorum in quo descripta sunt evangelia, 
(3) = εὐαγγέλια ἐωθινά, (4) = εὐαγγέλια ἐωθινὰ 
ἀναστάσιμα, (5) = εὐαγγέλια ὁσιακά, (0) = 
μικρὰ εὐαγγέλια, a mulieribus vice φυλακτηρίων 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 45 


gestata, (7) = εὐαγγελιστάριον, (8) = τετρα- 
ευάγγελον, codex quatuor evangehorum, Xe. 
Sophocles: (1) good tidings, (2) applied to 
the revelation by Christ = Gospel, (3) Gospel, 
a history of Christ, (4) the gospels collectively, 
(5) the book containing the four gospels, (6) 
the gospel of the day, (7) evangelistary, the 
book containing the gospel of each day, (8) 
a book of faith; cf. εὐαγγέλιον Evas, ᾿Ιούδα, 
Σκυθιανοῦ. This compactness and method 
naturally enable and lead Sophocles to 
notice unusual meanings of words not noted 
by Du Cange. The word ἐκκλησία is found 
in Du Cange in the ordinary senses of : (1) 
conventus Christianorum, (2) Aedes in quam 
conveniunt fideles, and (3) cathedrales civitatum 
(cf. μεγάλαι ἐκκλησίαι). Inaddition to these, 
all mentioned by him, Sophocles gives: (4) 
local church, (5) Ecclesia, female of Aeon in 
the Valentinian theogony, (6) Roman comitia, 
and a note on of ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ΟΥ οἱ τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας = members of the true church. 
Quite often the two works are equally full, 
but each in a different line ; e.g. εὐλογία is 
given in Du Cange in nine senses and in 
Sophocles in seven. Of Du Cange’s nine the 
first appears as (3) in Sophocles, the second 
as (4), the third as (5), the fourth and fifth 
not at all, unless they be referred to (1) = 
blessing in general ; the sixth appears as (7), 
the seventh as (2); the eighth, like the 
fourth or fifth, not at all or under (1), and 
the ninth (pestis species—small pox, no 
doubt) not at all. On the other hand, 
Sophocles adds as (6) = nuptial benediction 
= στεφάνωμα. Similars the case with other 
words, cf. σπαθάριος, ἀββᾶς, τόπιον. Occasion- 
ally a word quite fully treated in 
Sophocles is not found in Du Cange’s 
Glossary, cf. ὀφείλω, σαλεύω. But above 
these differences, a special excellence of 
Sophocles in comparison with Du Cange is 
his philological treatment of words. His 
knowledge of the history of the. Greek 
language is complete; he is familiar not 
merely with classic antecedents of his 
special period of that history, but also with 
the various streams that have flowed in and 
mingled with it, and as a rule he traces words 
of foreign origin to their respective sources, 
as he also generally connects purely Greek 
words with their classic antecedents. Thus 
Latin words are traced to the Latin, and 
Hebrew or other Shemitic words to their 
Shemitic roots. There are of course ex- 
ceptions, cf. ἀββᾶς, Φαρισαῖος, Σαδδουκαῖος ; but 
perhaps these are treated like proper names. 
The Egyptian origin of Batov (as per 
Stephens) Sophocles either consciously or 
unconsciously omits. Combined with this 


linguistic knowledge we discern a peculiar 
familiarity with the customs, institutions, 
and history of the Eastern (Greek) church 
in Sophocles which at times goes beyond 
even Du Cange’s thorough acquaintance 
with these things. On δεσπότης, for example, 
Du Cange merely gives the secular sense of 
dominus ; while Sophocles gives: (1) master 
in general, (2) emperor, emperor's son, and (3) 
the ecclesiastical bishop, priest. 

This comparison need not be carried into 
matters of external and mechanical execu- 
tion, such astypeand form. It goes without 
saying that in these respects the more 
modern work is an improvement upon the 
old. It is enough to point out the cumbrous 
system of appendices and addenda in Du 
Cange, in contrast with Sophocles’s perfect 
simplicity. Nor need anything more than 
the mere fact of Sophocles’s independence 
from Du Cange be noted here. His method 
of treatment, his point of view, his references 
and quotations are different. A comparison 
of ten words with an aggregate of about 
150 references by Du Cange and 200 by 
Sophocles shows that only about 15 to 20 
references are identical. (Greater precision is 
impossible owing to the difference in the 
titles as quoted by the two lexicographers, 
and the inaccessibility of many of Du 
Cange’s authors.) 

Altogether, Du Cange’s Glossariwm 15 
more of a collection of short historical 
monograms on a list of words, whereas 
Sophocles’s Zeatcon is a lexicon with more 
or less precise etymological and methodical 
definitions. 

But aside from comparison with Du 
Cange’s Glossary, this work of Sophocles 
may be commended as at present the only 
aid to the scholar in his studies of the earlier 
Greek Fathers. It is not perfect of course. 
In its introductory portion, one or two 
changes would increase its scientific and 
logical character: e.g. in the periodology of the 
Greek language, we fail to see the import- 
ance of the hegiric era 622 as an epoch- 
making date; the event it marks was too 
remote to exercise a direct influence on the 
course of the Greek language. It would be 
much better to substitute the year 780 (the 
date of the separation of the Eastern and 
Western churches), as marking a new de- 
parture in Byzantine history. A similar 
change of the beginning of the Alexandrian 
period from 283 to 332, though less obvious, 
would nevertheless be a real improvement. 

Every one will sympathise with the author 
when he tells us in the prefatory note that 
he had been compelled to leave out certain 


44 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


classes of words there described, ‘ the alter- 
native being to give up the intention of 
publishing the book.’ AJl omissions of words 
familiar to the scholar from classical usage 
will naturally be attributed to this same 
necessity ; but why should distinctly post- 
classical (Roman and Byzantine) usages be 
omitted, such as the meanings of κύων (1) = 
Jetlock joint of a horse (Hesych.), (2) = κυνικὸς 
σπασμός (Gal. VIII. 41), (3) = crust used as 
spoon and thrown to the dogs (Hust. 1859, 
19), (4) =a throw at dice; Lat. canicula 
damnosi canes (Poll. 1X. 100; Eust. 1289) ? 
Or under διδάσκω the phrase διδάσκειν τὸν 
λαόν = to preach, or under κλέπτω the sense 
of concealing (Syn. 283 C) ? 

Again Sophocles is not perfectly consistent 
in the omission of classical words; or in 
the grammatical suggestions appended, e.g. 
he gives the fut. of βηματίζω but the aor. of 
βιγλεύω, βιαιοθανατέω, and neither the fut. nor 
the aor. of βιαιομαχέω. Or, in proper names, 
he gives Ἱεροσόλυμα, Ἱεριχώ, ᾿Αλεξάνδρεια, but 
leaves out Δαμασκός, Ἰόππη &e., justascommon 
and important, or Tdyada, Γίσχαλα, ᾿Ιωτάπατα 
&e. (Josephus) less known. If the choice in 
all these points is on principle, a brief intro- 


ductory note would help the user as a guide 
when to consult and when not to consult 
this Leaicon. It would have been better 
also, especially for the use of students, to 
give the English of Greek equivalents, either 
with or instead of the Greek. The word 
ἀβίβλαβον is given as = κρίνον, ἡμεροκαλλίς, 
which is familiar to the scholar, but not to 
the student ; and so with a large number of 
equivalents. 

But these are mere blemishes in a great 
work. It is not to be denied that a great 
step forward was taken in Greek lexico- 
graphy when this Lexicon made its appear- 
ance. But the diligence with which _his- 
torians are at present investigating Byzan- 
tine literature deserves and demands a fuller 
and more scientific work, and the next step 
forward must be in that line. Hence we 
cannot look with unmixed joy upon the 
announcement of a facsimile reprint of Du 
Cange’s Glossary. If this reprint is to serve 
as a mere historical monument, it is well ; 
but if it is to occupy the place which be- 
longs to a more modern and exhaustive 
work, it is to be deprecated. 

A. C. ZENos. 


Volistandiges Worterbuch uber die Gedichte 
des Homeros und der Homeriden, nach dem 
fritheren Seilerschen Homerworterbuch nen bear- 
beitet von CAPELLE. Neunte verbesserte Auflage. 
Leipzig, 1889. Mk. 4.80. 


THE ninth edition of a well-known work, improved 
but not greatly altered, demands no extended review ; 
but the preface calls attention to the notable number 
of important works on Homer which have appeared 
since the publication of the eighth edition in 1889, 
and every page bears the marks of careful revision. 
In the great majority of cases, the best meanings and 
derivations are given concisely, and a long list might 
be made of words about which this dictionary gives 
better information than is found in the seventh edi- 
tion of Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon. 1.5. πεφυζότες 
X 1 must mean ‘frightened,’ cf. φύζα 1 2, for which 
L. and S. makes no provision; μέλλεν μέν ποτε 
οἶκος ὅδ᾽ ἀφνειὸς καὶ ἀμύμων a 232, L. and S. ‘was 
destined to be’ etc., instead of ‘doubtless was,’ as 
Capelle rightly has it. In αἴ κεν ἐμοὶ Ζεὺς | δώῃ καμ- 
μονίην, σὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ἀφέλωμαι X 256 f., L. and S.,’ 
following a prosaic scholiast, renders καμμονίην by 
“aictory as the reward of steady cowrage.’ Far better, 
if not necessary, is it to take καμμονίην literally (with 
Capelle, ‘Ausdauer’), ‘steadfastness.’ ‘If Zeus 
grants to me to stand steadfast, and I take from thee 
thy life.’ Here the first half verse is explained by 
the second. 

Occasionally Capelle is unsatisfactory, and guilty 
of such slight inconsistencies as naturally arise in 
such a work. £g. under ψευδής he treats of ψευδέσσι 
A 235; but explains this as ψεύδεσσι, under ἀρωγός. 
But an immense amount of accurate information is 


contained in this book of 605 pages, sold for about 
four shillings. This dictionary is ἃ condensed com- 
mentary, and if a man were limited to one book on 
Homer, besides the text, he might well choose this. 


ΠΕΡΉΣΘΣ 


Dinarchi orationes adjectis Demadis qui fertur 
fragmentis ὑπὲρ τῆς δωδεκαετίας, iterum edidit 
FRIDERICUS BLAss. 1888, Teubner. 1 Mk. 


SINCE 1865 Professor Blass has been active as a 
student of Greek orators and oratory and has acquired 
a well deserved prestige in this field. Seventeen 
years have intervened between the first and this the 
second edition of Dinarchus. It would indeed be a 
matter of substantial interest to know how many 
copies of the first edition were issued, for it would 
enable one to judge of the extent of classical reading 
at large, particularly in the case of this, the last of 
the ten Attic orators, both in time and in literary 
attractiveness. One may say that these slender be- 
quests of the Corinthian speech-writer owe their 
survival to the interest which history has shown in all 
the literary tradition that bears upon the career of 
Demosthenes, 

The two most valuable MSS. are both in England, 
an Oxoniensis and a Crippsianus. 

On the whole Blass has been conservative as an 
editor, rarely on the whole admitting the inter- 
polations claimed by the Cobetian critic Kleyne, 
Mnemosyne (older series), viii. Blass says very 
sensibly, praef. p. ix. : ‘ ipse id tenwi ne quod verbum 
ideo delerem, quia abesse potest vel posse videtur. 
Nimis facile cst in quovis scriptore invenire quae 
recidere possis ; sed non est oratoris qualis hic est 
quan paucrssimis ubique verbis uti.’ Indeed one may 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 45 


fitly characterize this speech-writer as long-winded 
and strong winded. It may safely be doubted 
whether in all the compass of classic Greek prose 
there can be found a more ponderous or more awk- 
ward period than that beginning §18 contra Dem. οὐκ 
ἀποκτενεῖτε and ending μὴ βοηθῆσαι τοῖς Θηβαίοις at 
the conclusion of § 21 (οἴ, Transactions of the 
American Philol. Asseciation for 1885). 

Some of the points to be noted after a comparison 
of the first and second editions of Blass’ 
Dinarchus are the following. Blass now proceeds 
radically in making elision to avoid hiatus, not hesi- 
tating even where the resulting form might be ambig- 
uous, as μηδέν᾽ for μηδένα. Many changes have been 
made in the matter of pointing, generally in the 
direction of mere articulation. In questions of form 
and spelling he desires conformity with epigraphic 
evidence of the times and refers to Meisterhans’ 
Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften. He writes 
the perf. of τρέπω τέτροφα. With one exception (§54 
c. Dem.) he writes γίγνεται, not γίνεται, and spells 
Μουνιχία and ἐκτείνω for ἐκτίνω, ἐκτείσις for ἐκτίσις, 
probably from epigraphic considerations. Of passages 
where the reading is still in grave doubt we may note 
§ 2c. Dem. ov yap tv’ ἐνοχλῶμεν κιτ.λ. Following 
Meisterhans he reads ἐπιτεθηκότες in ὃ 23 c. Dem. tor 
ἐπιτεθεικότες of the MSS. 

A few critical suggestions may be here appended. 
It was suggested (Proceedings Am. Philol. Assoc. for 
1885, and Am. Journal of Philol. vol ix.) to insert 
οὐδὲν after πώποτε c. Aristog. 15, in which remark we 
coincide with Bekker, τοιοῦτον for τοῖς τοῦτον in the 
same section-would seem to be more in harmony with 
grammar and context. E. G. SIHLER. 

New York. 

In the praefatio xi. line 4, Hermes xxii. 78 is a 

mistake for 378. 


Supplementa ad Procli Commentarios in Pla- 
tonis de republica libros nuper uulgatos, 
edidit RicARDUS REITZENSTEIN. Breslauer Philo 
logische Abhandlungen. Vierter Band. Drittes 
Heft. Breslau, 1889. pp. 1—31. 1 Mk. 


Tus short pamphlet has been issued in view of 
Cardinal Pitra’s recent publication (from the MS. 
Gk. Vat. 2197) of Proclus’s commentary on the story 
of Er, the son of Armenius, in Tom. v. part ii. of the 
Analecta Sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi parata (Parisiis 
1888). Cardinal Pitra seems to have been unaware 
that a second copy of this work of Proclus, made by 
Angelus Maius, is preserved in the Vatican library : 
and Reitzenstein has published a revised text of part 
of the commentary (= pp. 25—32 and pp. 1—12 of 
Vat. MS. 2197) from a comparison of the original 
MS. with Maius’scopy. Pitra’s text contained many 
errors, and probably was not finally revised by him 
when he died. Reitzenstein has corrected most if not 
allof his mistakes, and made many certain emendations 
where the manuscript is unintelligible, e.g. ὁ αὐτός for 
οὗτος on page 7, line 2: μὲν ὄν tor μένον on 7, 25: 
δίκην for διπλῆν on 9, 15: ἀνάγειν eis τὸν αἰθέρα for 
ἀνάγει τὸν αἰθέρα on 10, 24: ποιεῖν ἔοικεν for torn κεν 
of MSS. in 12, 14: χάσμα for χίασμα on 17, 80 : ar 
ἄλλων for am ἀλλήλων on 29, 14: and ὄχημα for 
σχῆμα on 31,7. It may however be doubted if the 
editor is justified in inserting ἐπὶ before τὸν αἰθέρα on 
page 10, 26, ὡς ἐπὶ δικαστικὸν τόπον ἀνιέναι τὸν 
ἀιθέρα : in such cases, as is well known (Cohet, Var. 
Lectiones, p. 165 foll.), the preposition is idiomatically 
inserted only once, viz. after the ὡς (ὥσπερ, καθάπερ), 
provided the ὡς clause comes first. We have no 
reason for denying this elegancy even to Proclus. 
Reitzenstein will confer a boon on readers of Plato 
and Proclus if he will publish the remaining parts of 
the commentary. J. ADAM. 


Bellum Alexandrinum, erklirt von R. SCHNEIDER. 
Berlin: Weidmann. 1888. pp. viii. 65. 90 pfg. 


THE writings of Caesar’s continuers were, until lately, 
among the most neglected portions of Latin literature. 
The text had been edited but textual criticism had not 
been applied in detail and, since 1830, no commen- 
tary appears to have been written on any part of them 
except the last book of the ‘Gallic War.’ But theenergy 
recently developed in the study of Caesar has extended 
to his continuers also. Merguet and Menge-Preuss 
have indexed them, and Dr. Schneider offers a brief 
commentary on the pamphlet describing the Alexan- 
drine war, that is the events from the battle of Phar- 
salus to Caesar’s entry into Rome. The book com- 
prises a short introduction, critical and explanatory 
notes, and an index. The critical notes give the 
readings of the four chief MSS. and select conjectures. 
In constituting the text, Dr. Schneider has been 
reasonably conservative (as conservatism is now 
understood); he appears, however, to rate the 
literary capacities of his author higher than previous 
scholars have done. Some of his conjectures are 
certainly attractive, e.g. ch. 8 consolativne et hor- 
tatione for ὁ. et ratione ; ch. 17 Pharitae for pariter ; 
ch. 42 in Illyricwm sinwm for in illum s., and the 
geographical restorations (for instance in ch. 52, 


lipa and Naeva) are well worth considering. If I 
may venture myself a suggestion, I would suggest 


appetuntur for aptantur in ch. i., comparing Caesar’s 
appetere umerum gladio (Bell. Civ. 2, 35). On the 
whole, Dr. Schneider's text is a distinct improvement 
on previous editions. The same cannot be said of the 
notes—for there is practically no previous edition on 
which they could constitute an advance. But they 
are (as would be expected from the writer) well chosen 
and scholarly, and, though never lengthy, they 
seldom leave the reader in the lurch. The whole 
book deserves to be very warmly recommended. 


ΒΕ, HAVERFIELD, 


1 des 
Berlin, 


Der Codex Mediceus, Pl. xxxix. ἢ. 
Vergilius, von Dr. Max HoFrMAnn. 
Weidmann, 1889. 3 Mk. 


THIs is a new collation of parts of the Medicean 
manuscript of Vergil, comprising part of the sixth 
Eclogue, and the remaining Kclogues, the Georgics, 
and the first and sixth Aeneids. In minute details 
it supplements Ribbeck, who mainly depended on 
Foggini’s transcript. ‘lhe account of the different 
classes of corrections is especially interesting. As 
the corrected or double readings are all printed in 
facsimile, the collation will be of great service to stu- 
dents of Latin palaeography ; but whether it throws 
much new light on the text of Vergil is very doubt- 
ful. HN 


Lettres Inédites de Michel Apostolis, publices 
par HipeoLtytTEe Norrer. Paris, Thorin, 1889. 


A very interesting and valuable contribution to 
the history of Greek erudition in the fifteenth cen- 
tury. Michel Apostolis was a professor in Crete from 
1455 to 1474 (or later) and lived during this troubled 
time by teaching, and copying Greek manuscripts. 
Forty-eight of his letters (the forty-seventh being 
incomplete) had been published by Legrand in the 
appendix to the second volume of his Bibliographie 
Heéllenique. The present volume contaius seventy- 
four more letters of Apostolis, hitherto unpublished, 
and now edited by M. Hippolyte Noiret, whose early 
death at the age of twenty-four is a great loss to letters. 
They were found in two Vatican MSS., Palatinw: 
Graecus 875 (once at Heidelberg) and Vaticanws 


40 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Graecus 1395, ‘The volume was prepared for the 
press and brought out by M. Desrousseaux, to whom 
Noiret was indebted for his first acquaintance with 
the two Vatican manuscripts. It contains (1) an 
account of the manuscripts: (2) an essay on the clas- 
sification and chronology of the letters: (3) a bio- 
graphical notice of Michel Apostolis and his numerous 
correspondents : (4) the letters themselves. In the 
case of the letters previously edited by Legrand only 
a collation of the newly discovered manuscript is 
given ; the rest are printed in full. 
HN: 


The Cradle of the Aryans. By G. M. RENDALL. 
London : Meecmillan. 1889. 95. 


Tuts little work is not, and does not pretend to be, 
more than ‘a clear account of present controversies 
regarding the origin, local and racial, of the Aryan 
stock.’ ‘The work is done probably as well asit could 
be done in the limited space of 63 pages. Mr Rendall 
gives the arguments of Schrader against accepting 
the Asiatic hypothesis, summarises Penka’s works, 
and concludes in favour of ‘the large northern 
plateau extending from the German Ocean to the 
contines of the Black Sea and Caspian watersheds’ 
as the local origin of the Aryans ; and considers that 
‘ Penka has gone far towards establishing an associa- 
tion between Aryan speech and the race of blond 
whites, whose central and immemorial home is found 
in Scandinavia.’ 

Mr. Rendall ‘makes no claim to original dis- 
coveries in the field of language.’ In the field of 
anthropology he bases himself mainly on Penka, with 
the proviso that he is ‘not competent to check 
Penka’s anthropology.’ However, if the English 
reader (for whom the book is intended apparently) 
comes, as he probably will come, to the conclusion 
that Penka’s speculations are as yet too remote from 
actual facts, philological and anthropological, to pro- 
vide even a working hypothesis, that will not be the 
fault of Mr. Rendall’s way of summarising Penka. 
From the point of view of the history of culture one 
or two observations may be made. Mr. Rendall ap- 
proves of the beech argument. But at the recent 
meeting of the British Association doubts were ex- 
pressed as to the Konigsberg-Crimea line: further 
search in the bogs east of that line might very well 
reveal the existence of beeches. Still greater weight 


is assigned by Mr. Rendall to the anguilla—éy- 
xedus—ungurys—aguija equation for ‘eel.’ He says: 
‘here then at last we are driven to a corner, and 
must accept the inference that the European unity 
was maintained...... ut some point in Central or West- 
ern Europe which the evidence forbids us to place far 
east of Russia’s western frontier. This if tenable will 
prove decisive to the whole controversy.’ But it is 
at least conceivable that the agreement between the 
languages cited is casual, that each people quite inde- 
pendently of the rest used for the designation of the 
eel, when they made its acquaintance, a diminutive 
of a pre-existing common word for ‘snake.’ Surely two 
or more peoples might quite independently have 
called the eel a little snake? The lion question 
again is not quite settled by Mr Rendail. He may 
be quite right in concluding that the primitive Indo- 
Europeans knew nothing of the lion; but the fact 
that all members of the European branch have a 
common name for it—even though a loan-name— 
would seem to indicate that they jointly made the 
acquaintance of the lion after leaving the original 
home. The Indo-Iranians again made the lion’s ac- 
quaintance separately after leaving the original home, 
wherever it may have been. Obviously we want 
some place which did not rejoice itself in lions, but 
was bounded both on the east and on the west by 
districts more favoured in this respect. Such a 
locality would be (not W. of the Konigsberg-Crimea 
line but) the southern steppes of Russia, supposing 
the distribution of animals was in pro-ethnic times 
the same as it was in the times of Herodotus and 
Aristotle, who testify to the presence of lions in 
Thrace and the neighbourhood. Again, assuming 
that J. Schmidt’s Undulation or Transition theory is 
true, and admitting that we must therefore suppose 
the original home to have been free from great physi- 
cal obstructions, such as the Caspian and the Cau- 
casus, we can only infer from this that the original 
home was a plain or plateau; we are not compelled to 
assume that the plain was west of the Caspian and 
north of the Caucasus. Finally, Mr. Rendall uses, 
I think, ‘ Aryan’ indiscriminately as equivalent both 
to Indo-Germanic and Indo-Iranian ; and this must 
be puzzling, ¢.g. on p. 34, to the class of reader for 
whom the book is intended. Schmidt’s Verwandt- 
schaftsverhdlinisse d. Indog. Spr. more than once 
appears as Verwantschaftsverhalimisse etc. 
F. JEVONS. 


NOTES. 


Hom. Ji. xix. 221 sq. 


αἶψά τε φυλόπιδος πέλεται κόρος ἀνθρώποισιν, 

fs τε πλείστην μὲν καλάμην χθονὶ χαλκὸς ἔχευεν, 

ἄμητος δ᾽ ὀλίγιστος, ἐπὴν κλίνῃσι τάλαντα 

Ζεὺς, ὅς τ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ταμίης πολέμοιο τέτυκται. 
225, γαστέρι δ᾽ οὔ πως ἔστι νέκυν πενθῆσαι ᾿ΑχαιούΞ" 

λίην γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἐπήτριμοι ἤματα πάντα 

πίπτουσιν: πότε κεν TLS ἀναπνεύσειε πόνοιο ; 


‘Swiftly, we know, do men find surfeit of battle, 
wherein, though the steel sheddeth on the earth 
haulm in plenty, yet the harvesting is but scant, 
what time Zeus hath inclined the balance, Zeus, who 
is a dealer out of war for men.’ Odusseus had 
already (157) given his vote against sending the men 
fasting to the field, ἐπεὶ οὐκ ὀλίγον χρόνον ἔσται 
φύλοπις : he is here only repeating that advice under 


a metaphor. ‘The men,’ he says, ‘have a long 
(πλείστην) and thankless (oAljioros) day’s work 
before them: therefore they should have a good 
meal first, for they will find that Zeus is a ταμίης 
πολέμοιο, ποῦ a Tauins, σιτοῖο δοτήρ (44). ἐπὴν 
κλίνῃσι K.T.A. Seems to mean no more than ‘ when 
the day is over,’ the aor. subj. having, as is usual in 
this form of sentence, the force of an English fut. per- 
fect. φύλοπις, then, will not be ‘a pitched battle’ as 
opposed to a ‘siege,’ nor will ἄμητος have any refer- 
ence to ‘plunder,’ but is merely due to the meta- 
phorical cast of the thought, which is kept up in 
226, ‘for very many in number and in thick piles 
are they mowed down,’ as in 18, 533: δράγματα δ᾽ 
ἄλλα μετ᾽ ὀγμὸν ἐπήτριμα πίπτον ἔραζε (quoted by La 
Roche, who notes that πίπτουσι δ passive ot ἔχευε, 221). 
And this perhaps determines the sense of the next 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 47 


words (227), which Mr. Monro seems to regard as a 
merely parenthetical exclamation equivalent to ‘we 
are never done fighting.’ But if this were the sense, 
it may be doubted whether Homer would have added 
κεν, Which is quite in place if the words have their 
protasis in the context: ‘if we are to fast for every 
man that falls, then (κεν) indeed we have our work 
(πόνοιο) cut out for us.’ That this sense of πόνος, 
‘hardship of fasting,’ is not ‘ post-Homeric’ perhaps 
appears from 22, 488 : 


iy περ yap TéAE MOV γε φύγῃ πολύδακρυν ᾿Αχαιῶν, 
αἰεί τοι τούτῳ ye TOVOS καὶ κήδε᾽ ὀπίσσω 


ἔσσοντ'᾽ ἄλλοι γάρ οἱ πουρίσσουσιν ἀρούρα-. 


Hom. Ji. xix. 76. 


τοῖσι δὲ καὶ μετέειπεν ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν ᾿Αγαμέμνων 
αὐτόθεν ἐὲ ἕδρης, οὐδ᾽ ἐν μέσσοισιν ἀναστάς. 


‘Agamemnon spake from the place where he had 
been sitting and not after going to stand in the 
midst of the assembly.’ Sch.: ot προελθὼν εἰς 
μέσην τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, tv’ ἦ, ἀναστὰς ἐδημηγόρει οὐκ ἐν 
μέσοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ἕδρας τῶν βασιλέων. The above 
view does not appear to conflict with Od. 18, 56: 


οἱ δὲ θεοῖσιν 
4 Uj > FN ¥ 
ἔσπεισαν μακάρεσσι, Tol οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσι, 
αὐτόθεν ἐὲ ἑδρέων' ἀνὰ δ᾽ ἵστατο δῖος ᾽Οδυσσεὺς 
2 L aes / , > U 
Αρήτῃ & ev χερσὶ τίθει δέπας ἀμφικύπελλον--- 


for surely the Phaeacians did not ‘say grace’ sitting, 
and ἀνὰ δ᾽ ἵστατο obviously implies that Odusseus not 
merely rose from his seat but moved away to another 
place. L. 77 is bracketed by Mr. Monro and by Mr. 
Leaf, who objects that ‘the distinction (between ἕδρης 
and ἐν μέσσοισι) is void of meaning.’ But his own 
note on 85 might suggest a defence of the line. It 
may be a part of the poet’s attempt to convey the 
embarrassment Mr. Leaf well points out in Agamem- 
non’s opening words, natural to a speaker who knows 
heis to blame (86 ἐγὼ δ᾽ οὐκ αἴτιος εἰμί) and piqued at 
the applause (81 πολλῷ ὁμάδῳ) which had followed 
Achilleus’s gallant speech (56-73). Already in 51 we 
find Agamemnon coming to the assembly δεύτατος, 
ἕλκος ἔχων, making as it seems more fuss about his 
wound, though it was after all only in the arm, than 
did Tydides and Odusseus about theirs, who though 
hit in the leg arrived before him, σκάζοντε, and took 
their places μετὰ πρώτῃ ἀγορῇ (47-50). Where 
Agamemnon sat we are not precisely told ; but it 
seems that on arising to address the assembly he was 
shy of taking the prominent place usually occupied 
by a speaker in the ἀγορά. If then the line is an 
‘emblema,’ our old friend the interpolator cannot 
have been such a bad fellow after all: at least his 
verse is not unworthy of the author of a similar, 
though finer, touch in 21, 36, where Achilleus comes 
an ἀνώιστον κακὸν to young Lykaon: 


6 δ᾽ ἐρινεὸν ὀξέι χαλκῷ 
τάμνε νεοὺς ὕρπηκας, iv’ ἅρματος ἄντυγες εἶεν. 


But we now see that Mr. Leaf, with a far more 
‘remorseless hook’ than innocent Lykaon’s, threatens 
to lop off this beauty too trom Homer’s book. 


W. T. LENDRUM. 
* * 
* 


HecatTe.—Mr. Bury’s ingenious etymology seems 
to be based on a fallacy. The comparison of Ἑκάτη 
with ἑκατόν is specious, but surely some account must 
be taken of the first syllables. It is not ἑκατόν 
but *-xaroy that corresponds to the Goth. hund. 


There seems little objection to the explanation of the 
é- adopted by Brugmann Gr. Gr. ἃ 101. In any 
case it must be either (1) formative—has Mr. Bury 
any similar explanation to offer for the corresponding 
syllable of ‘Exarn ?—or (2) an (impossible) accretion— 
does Mr. Bury regard the ‘E- as a similar accretion 
to a different root, and if so can he justify such an 
extraordinary coincidence? The same objection will 
apply to his explanation_of éxdFepyos and ἑκηβόλος 
as formed from the base &(w)2.— 

Mr. Bury makes Hecatus a masc. formed from 
Hecate, rather than wice versa. Is it not of some 
evidential value that the epithet ἕκατος of Apollo is 
common in Hom., whereas Ἑκάτη is post-Homeric ? 

ἑκατηβόλος may very Well stand as a contamination 
form from ἕκατος and ἑκηβόλος. 

Finally a hint of at least the Homeric interpreta- 
tion of the epithets may perhaps be seen in JZ. 1. 48. 


J. H. VINCE. 
* * 
ΕἾ 


A PINDARIC SCHOLION. —A vetus scholiwm on Pin- 
dar, Nemcean iii. 62 ἐν φρασὶ πάξαιθ᾽ runs thus (ed. 
Abel, p. 103) : 
πλαγίω 5 λογίσαιτο καὶ κρίνοι" ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰς πέρας ἄγοι 
Abel’s note is: num μή ante πλαγίως addendwm? I 
am surprised that none of the many German scholars 
who have investigated the Pindaric scholia vetera 
perceived the obvious correction of πλαγίως. 


Read taylws λογίσαιτο κ.τ.λ. 


The whole point of the explanation of πήξαιτο is 
contained in παγίως. --- 


Jee UR 
* Ἀ 
* 


ΞΟΡΗ. Antigone, 2—3. 
ap’ οἷσθ᾽ ὁ τι Ζεὺς τῶν am’ Οἰδίπου κακῶν 
ὁποῖον οὐχὶ νῷν ἔτι ζώσαιν τελεῖ; 

It seems to be agreed that either ἐστὶ or τελεῖ is to 
be supplied here—with 6 7: most editors say. Is it 
not possible that the “τελεῖ in the text is the “τελεῖ᾽ 
which belongs to 6 τι and that it is with the other 
clause that τελεῖ has to be ‘supplied’ or ‘under- 
stood’? If Sophocles had written 


ε 


ἄρ᾽ οἷσθ᾽ 6 τι Ζεὺς τῶν ἀπ᾿ Οἰδίπου τελεῖ, 

ὁποῖον οὐχὶ νῷν ἔτι ζώσαιν, κακῶν ; 
he would have written harshly, but the construction 
would have been plain : the parenthetic clause would 
mean ‘ otherwise than upon us in our lives.’ Now if 
the clause ὁποῖον... ζώσαιν be isolated by commas, or 
by pauses in actual delivery, the construction is 
equally plain : 

ap’ οἷσθ᾽ 6 τι Ζεὺς τῶν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου κακῶν, 

ὁποῖον οὐχὶ νῷν ἔτι ζώσαιν, τελεῖ ; 
This is not altogether satisfactory, but the construc- 
tion would at least be fairly clear to a hearer. How 
could an actor deliver the first line in such a way as 
not to excite vain expectation of a verb to follow ὃ 
This he would have to do, if the τελεῖ in the text 
belongs to ὁποῖον ov. W. R. HArpieg. 

% 8 
* 


ΞΌΡΗ. Anfé. 1. 4. 
οὐδὲν γὰρ οὔτ᾽ ἀλγεινὸν οὔτ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ 
οὔτ᾽ αἰσχρὸν οὔτ᾽ ἄτιμόν ἐσθ᾽, ὁποῖον οὐ 
τῶν σῶν τε κἀμῶν οὐκ ὕπωπ᾽ ἐγὼ κακῶν. 
This, the reading of the MSS., yields no tolerable 
sense, and most editors have directed their emenda- 


48 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


tions to the words οὔτ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ. Prof. Jebb, 
however, has drawn attention to the scholium in ἢ 
which proves that ἄτης ἄτερ was already the tra- 
ditional reading in the time of Didymus, circ. 30 B.c. 
The Scholium runs: Δίδυμος φησὶν ὅτι ἐν τούτοις τὸ 
ἄτης ἄτερ ἐναντίως συντέτακται τοῖς συμφραζομένοι"5" 
λέγει γὰρ οὕτως: οὐδὲν γάρ ἐστιν οὔτε ἀλγεινόν, οὔτε 
ἀτηρόν, οὔτε αἰσχρὸν ὃ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἡμεῖς. ἄτης ἄτερ δέ 
ἐστι τὺ ἀγαθόν. Is it ποῦ possible that the true corrup- 
tion may be confined to the word ἀλγεινὸν, and that the 
line may originally have stood thus: οὐδὲν yap οὔτ᾽ 
atnpodv οὔτ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ In this case we shall have both 
in ἀτηρὸν and οὔτ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ a reference to the semi- 
technical sense in which ἄτη is used by the trage- 
dians of an hereditary curse, so that we may para- 
phrase: ‘There is no misfortune involved by the 
curse upon our house, nor any general calamity 
either (i.e. not directly referable to that curse), etc. 
It would be in this sense then that Didymus 
remarked τὸ ἄτης ἄτερ ἐναντίως συντέτακται τοῖς 
συμφραζομένοις. (The rest of the scholium I take to 
be not the words of Didymus, but an attempted 
explanation of them by the scholiast in Z. The reading 
ἀλγεινὸν may have originated from a gloss on the 
rarer word ἀτηρὸν by a scribe who, failing to grasp 
the technical sense of ἄτῃ, did not perceive the true 
antithesis of arnpdy and ἄτης ἄτερ.) C285 


* * 
ΕἼ 
ΞΌΡΗ. Phil. 1383. 
πῶς yap τις αἰσχύνοιτ᾽ ἂν ὠφελούμενος ; 


This line is usually left with the manuscript 
reading on the supposition that the verb has a unique 
middle sense. Wecklein tries to avoid this by sug- 
gesting ὠφελῶν τινά. If we read simply ὦ φίλ᾽, 
ὠφελῶν, it is a perfectly easy matter to trace the 
process by which the manuscript reading was evolved. 
The very close similarity of ὦ φίλ᾽ and ὠφελ- led, as 
usual, to the omission of the one. When ὠφελῶν 
alone was read, the line was easily seen to be metri- 
cally defective, so some copyist who thought more of 
sound than sense contrived to get good metre by the 
easy expedient of lengthening ὠφελῶν to ὠφελούμενος. 
Such a process of change is easy to parallel (e.g. the 
similar but still more intricate one traced by Prof. 
Jebb in Soph. O. 7. 1099—1100). The ὦ φίλ᾽ is 
specially appropriate, for Neoptolemus has been 
coaxing Philoktetes to come to Troy along with him, 
his proved friend, φίλου wer’ ἀνδρός, as he says a few 
lines above. And in his next words he assures 
Philoktetes that he is his friend (σοί που φίλος γ᾽ &v), 
and further on addresses him as ὦ τάν. 


N. MAcnicon. 


* * 
* 


PLATO, Rep. VI. 488ε, ὅπως δὲ κυβερνήσει k.T.A.— 
The sense is, that the sailors (οἰόμενοι, asin the MSS., 
may be ungrammatical but all the same natural) do not 
think that their star-gazing pilot will have either the 
knowledge or experience how to steer the ship (μήτε 
τέχνην μήτε μελέτην τούτου, ὅπως κυβερνήσει) Without 
regard to their wishes. Stallbaum thinks we have here 
implied the modern contrast between scientific know- 
ledge and practical skill ; but this is entirely irrele- 
vant and un-Platonic. It is not less un-Platonic, 
though far more plausible, to suppose that Plato 
asserts, in opposition to the disobedient sailors, the 
fitness of the scientific pilot to join in the scramble 
for power and to emerge from it victorious : and the 
same criticism must be applied to the substantially 
identical view of Grote and Mr. Sidgwick, though 


they suppose that not the sailors, but the pilot holds 
that his knowledge in no way fits him to overcome 
the mutinous tendencies of the crew. The fact is 
that the philosopher has left the region of common 
sense altogether and is enforcing his paradox that 
Power is Knowledge, and Knowledge is Power—power 
even over the wills of our fellow-men ; he is insisting 
that the mutinous sailors are wrong in supposing the 
observer of the stars to be a mere dreamer unable to 
handle the ships despite their opposition. The 1st 
book of the Republic has shown us how Plato regards 
the man of knowledge as a ruler (ἰατρός = σωμάτων 
ἄρχων, κυβερνήτης = ναυτῶν ἄρχων), and a so-called 
ruler as no ruler at all unless he be a man of knowledge, 
since otherwise he defeats his own ends. The Polzti- 
cus (to which Stallbaum refers but of which he makes 
insufficient use) shows the same thing in the abstract, 
viz: that Plato regards government as a part of 
science, γνωστικῆ not πρακτική. Why he did so is 
not hard to understand, though at first sight the 
Aristotelian τὸ τέλος οὐ γνῶσις ἀλλὰ πρᾶξις seems NO 
such recondite a truth. Perfect government, Plato 
saw, like perfect living, manifestly depends on know- 
ledge ; in fact it was the special function of Socrates 
and Plato to bring out this dependence. Again—as 
the Politicus shows—Plato’s analysis of life, less com- 
plete than Aristotle’s, made ouly two divisions of it, 
the Cognitive and the Productive which brings into 
existence σώματα πρότερον οὐκ ὄντα, 258e. Lastly 
ideal government and perfect knowledge tended to 
become identified in Plato’s mind as the highest 
things he knew and worthy of equal reverence ; he 
could not, like Aristotle, have calmly put πολιτική 
below θεωρία, though allowing of course the greater 
attractiveness of the latter. The thought that 
government was really the result of competing forces, 
of opposing wills, was abhorrent to him. Here he 
was less really wise than the disobedient sailors in his 
parable, who thought there was but one way to 
become master of a ship, namely to beg or intrigue 
for it, and felt sure that the scientific pilot had not 
learnt by τέχνη or μελέτη how to do that; and we 
agree with them, seeing that, thanks to Aristotle, we 
understand life better than Plato did and see that 
knowledge is the least part of ruling, the essential 
element being to make others obey you. When 
Plato attempts to force experience to corroborate his 
doctrine he has but poor success. For he can say but 
this—that, assuming government to include the sup- 
pression of opposing wills, the scientific pilot (it is to 
be noticed he is not called ‘scientific’ but apxixds) or 
the scientific doctor still truly governs, for in case 
of need (ἐάν τις κάμνῃ, 489b.) the law of nature and 
necessity (ἔχει φύσιν---ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι, 7b.) forces us to 
come to him and obey him whether we like or not. 
But some men have died rather than eall in a doctor ; 
ships have foundered because the crews would not ac- 
cept the direction of the one competent man among 
them; and (to come to the sphere of government proper) 
the Jonians failed in their revolt and lost their indepen- 
dence because they would not be the obedient subjects 
of Dionysius of Phocaea. The man of skill and know- 
ledge must thrust himself to the front, and it is well 
for the world that he sometimes does ; though often 
elbowed out by noisy incompetence, it is happily not 
true that a man with the stuff for command in him 
(οὗ ἂν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ τι ὄφελος ἢ) never solicits power 
(489c. ; ef. 347a). 
J. SOLOMON. 


* * 
* 


Herovotus II. 22, 


κῶς ὧν δῆτα ῥέοι ἂν ἀπὸ χιόνος, ἀπὸ τῶν θερμοτάτων 
[τόπων] ῥέων ἐς τὰ ψυχρότερα; τῶν τὰ πολλά ἐστι 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 49 


ἀνδρί γε λογίζεσθαι τοιούτων πέρι οἵῳ τε ἐόντι, ὡς οὐδὲ 
εἰκὸς ἀπὸ χιόνος μεν ῥέειν: πρῶτον μὲν καὶ μέγιστον 
μαρτύριον, κ.τ.λ. 

I have never seen and cannot devise any satisfactory 
method of construing the second clause of this sen- 
tence. As it stands, τῶν τὰ πολλὰ must refer back 
to what precedes, but it is evident from the beginning 
of the next sentence that some preparation for it is 
wanted in this. I believe that τεκμήρια lies concealed 
in τὰ and that τῶν therefore was not in the original, 
as it is not in all MSS. ; a blot or gap in the MS. 
might easily cause the corruption. But exactly how 
the words between ψυχρότερα and πολλά ἐστι stood 
it seems now impossible to say. Stein’s reading is 
still more incomprehensible to me than the vulgate. 


AS Pram: 
* * 
* 


TRACES OF VERSE IN PRosE WRITERS. — Xen. 
Cyropacdia iv. 6 ἃ δ.---κἀγὼ μὲν ὃ τάλας νεκρὸν ἀντὶ 
νυμφίου ἐκομισάμην καὶ ἔθαψα τηλικοῦτος ὧν ἄρτι 
γενειάσκοντα τὸν ἄριστον παῖδα τὸν ἀγαπητόν: 6 δὲ 
κατακανὼν ὥσπερ ἐχθρὺν ἀπολέσας οὔτε μεταμελ- 
ὄμενος πώποτε φανερὺς ἐγένετο οὔτε ἀντὶ τοῦ κακοῦ 
ἔργου τιμῆς τινος ἠξίωσε τὸν κατὰ ys. The whole 
passage from which the words are taken has ἃ strongly 
pathetical and half-poetie ring (compare πολλὰ 
γοωμένη in § 9), and the last few lines are quite in the 
style of the sepulchral common-place. “Apri γενειάσκων 
was a stock opening for an epitaph on a young man ; 
see Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca 345 : ἄρτι γενειάζοντα 
k.T.A. Where he writes ‘Exodium carminis haud 
rarum Theocriteum est xi. 9 ἄρτι γενειάσδων᾽ (ubi 
vide Meineke); compare also Kaibel 100: ἄρτι 
γενειάσκων K.T.A.; add. 5520 : [ἄρτι] γενειήσαντι k.7.A. 
also Anthol. (Jacobs) ii. 262 : “Apts γενειάζων ὃ καλὸς 
Kal στερρὸς ἐρασταῖς | παιδὸς ἐρᾷ Λάδων. σύντομος 7 
Νέμεσις. In fact Xenophon’s sentence might be 
turned into elegiac verse, almost without alteration as 
follows : 


“Apt. γενειάσκοντα γέρων τὸν ἄριστον ἔθαψα 
παῖδα κομισσάμενος νυμφίου ἀντὶ νεκρόν" 
ὡς ἐχθρὸν δ᾽ ὃ κανὼν ἀπολέσσας“ οὐκ ἀλεγίζει, 
τιμῆς τὸν κατὰ γῆς οὔτινος ἀξιόων. 
But I have not the least belief that Xenophon had 
any one particular epitaph in his mind; his diction 
in this passage is merely coloured by the reminiscence 
of many a phrase belonging to the vocabulary of 
mourning and of condolence. A similar account must 
I think, be given of the subjoined passage also. 


Plutarch ii. 463 A: διὸ τῶν μὲν ἀσώτων ταῖς οἰκίαις 
προσιόντες, αὐλητριδος ἀκούομεν ἑωθινῆς, καὶ πηλόν, ὥς 
τις εἶπεν, οἴνου, καὶ σπαράγματα στεφάνων, καὶ κραι- 
παλῶντας ὁρῶμεν ἐπὶ θύραις ἀκολούθους. It would be 
obvious to suspect this passage to be a paraphrase of 
Comic fragment, if the words ὥς τις εἶπεν inserted to 
explain πηλὸν οἴνου did not prove it to proceed from 
the author himself. But evidently his mind is full 
of the vocabulary and phrases which are expressive 
of revelry, and it would be very easy to write the 
sentence in verse as follows : 


Αὐλητρίδος θ᾽ ἑωθινῆς ἀκούομεν, 
καὶ πηλὸν οἴνου καὶ στεφάνων σπαράγματα 
καὶ κραιπαλῶντας ἐπὶ θύραις ὑπηρέτας 
ὁρῶμεν. 

But the attempt is, I believe, simply misleading. 


Ὁ ΡΟ; iis 225 
Wordsworth’s 
couplet : 

εἰς ἴδιον ἐξέραμ᾽ ἐπιστρέψας κύων. 
> 


λελουμένη θ᾽ bs εἰς κύλισμα βορβόρου. 
NO. XXX. VOL. IV. 


suggested to the late Bishop 
mind the remains of an Jambic 


Ido not know whether his conjecture is rendered 
more probable, or less so, from a circumstance which 
I think I have observed in this Epistle, viz. that the 
writer’s style and manner of diction seem coloured 
by areminiscence of the manner and rhythm of tragic 
iambic verse. Without difficulty one Sunday after- 
noon, with very little transposition of words, I con- 
trived to write a good many verses of 2 Peter in 
clumsy iambic trimeters. Take these lines from 1, 
19 foll. : 


Ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον δὲ τὸν προφητικὸν 
λόγον, ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες νόον 
φαίνοντι, λύχνος ὥς, ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τύπῳ, 
ἕως ἂν ὑμῖν ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ 

ἐν καρδίασι κἀνατείλῃ φωσφόρος“. 


Or these from ii. 1 foll. : 


Aad δ᾽ ἐγένοντο ψευδοπροφῆται τῷ πάλαι, 
ὑμῖν δ᾽ ἔσονται ψευδοδιδάσκαλοί ποτε 

οἱ καὶ παρεισάζουσιν αἱρέσεις κακὰς 

τὸν ἀγοράσαντα δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι, 
ἐπάγοντες αὑτοῖς τὴν ἀπωλείαν ταχύ. 
πολλοὶ δ᾽ ἀκολουθήσουσι τῶνδ᾽ ἀσωτίᾳ, 
ὁδός τ᾽ ἀληθείας βεβλασφημήσεται. 
πλαστοῖς γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἐμπορεύσονται λόγοις, 
πλεονεξίᾳ σπεύδοντες, οἷς οὐκ ἔκπαλαι 
ἀργεῖ τὸ κρῖμά γ᾽ οὔτε νυστάζει μόρος". 


Or again these from i. 9 : 


ὦ μὴ πάρεστι ταῦτα, κεῖνός ἐστι δὴ 
τυφλὺς μυωπάζων τε καὶ λήθην λαβὼν 
ἤδη καθαρμοῦ τῶν προτέρων ἁμαρτιῶν. 


So many strange things have been said about the 
style of 2 Peter, that I am not afraid of my suggestion 
being thought too extravagant to be mentioned. 

ΒΕ, L. Hicks. 


* * 
* 


CrcERO, pro Sestio, 126. 

‘Non modo gladiatores, sed ipsi equi gladiatorum 
repentinis sibilis extimescebant.’ Surely the orator 
must have written: ‘non modo equi gladiatorum, 
sed ipsi gladiatores repentinis sibilis extimescebant.’ 
Under the circumstances mentioned the horses, not 
their stolid riders, would have been the first to take 
alarm. They must have been well-bred horses, and 
it is perfectly certain that the well-bred horse of 
ancient times was fully as flighty as the well-bred 
horse of our own. 

Joun BAXTER. 
Mendham, New Jersey. 


[But a circus-horse has pretty well got over his 
‘flightiness,’ and would be slower than his rider to 
understand the significance of a sibilatio. | 


* * 


Viner, Georg. iv. 511 foll. Ina paper read to the 
Oxford Philological Society on the Birds of Virgil, 
afterwards amplified into a chapter in A Year with 
the Birds, 1 commented on these beautiful lines, but 
without doing full justice to Virgil’s truthfulness. 
Comparing the passage with Homer, Od. xix. 518 foll. 
(where, in spite of the puzzling epithet xAwpyis, the 
bird can hardly be other than the nightingale), I 
pointed out that Homer has two touches which are 
true to the life—viz. the variety of the nightingale’s 
song, and its habit of singing in the recesses of thick 
cover ; while Virgil has neither of these. I refrained 
from suggesting, as I might have done, that in making 

E 


δ0 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the bird lament the loss of its young populea sub 
umbra, Virgil has apparently chosen the most thinly- 
leaved of all trees, and the one which would afford 
least cover and least shade, and thus seem least of 
all to suit the well-known habits of the bird. 

Since then I have learnt that the poet was after all 
perfectly true to nature. While listening to a night- 
ingale some time ago close to Godstow Bridge, near 
Oxford, it suddenly dawned on me that this bird was 
actually singing populea sub wnbra. The tall Lom- 
bardy poplars, on a lower branch of one of which it 
was perched, were growing out of a thick undergrowth 
of willow and alder and other scrub in which beyond 
doubt the nest was placed. What Virgil was thinking 
of must have been surely a scene of the same kind— 
thick scrub along the banks of the streams or ditches 
of reedy Mantua, with poplars growing out of the 
undergrowth ; the ploughman had discovered the nest 
in the scrub, and the bird had retired to a poplar 
branch to give voice to its grief, or possibly to cheer 
its mate to fresh exertions. This passage, then, 
which was perhaps the only one I found to suggest 
the smallest suspicion that Virgil could write of 
birds conventionally rather than truly, is in all prob- 
ability a reminiscence of some actual experience of 
the poet’s boyhood. 

As I have mentioned the Homeric passage, I wish 
to add that the word χλωρηΐς, as applied to the night- 
ingale, is after all not so puzzling as it might seem. 
It is true that the bird’s colouring is neither olive- 
green nor pale ; the brown is of a reddish tint, and 
in the tail during flight the red is obvious. But 
when it is seen δενδρέων ἐν πετάλοισι καθεζομένη πυκ- 
ἐνοῖσιν, 1.6. With the shadows of thick foliage falling 
on it, the appropriateness of the epithet becomes 
probable and even certain. I have constantly had 
occasion to notice the difference between the appear- 
ance of a bird ‘in the bush’ and of the same bird 
‘in the hand’; and it is necessary to remember 
(apart from the vagueness of Greek words for colour) 
that the Greek poets, and even Aristotle himself for 
the most part, described birds as they knew them 
in their own haunts, and not as specimens in a 
museum. 

Whether this interpretation was exactly what was 
meant by the scholiasts when they explained the 
word by “ἐν χλωροῖς φαινομένη,᾽ and “ἐν χλωροῖς 
διατρίβουσα,᾽ I will not undertake to say. Their ex- 
planation is rejected by Buchholz (Hom. Real. i. 2, 
123), on the ground that it does not suit with the 
distinctness of Homeric epithets ; and he prefers to 
seek (without much success) for another species whose 
colouring would better suit the natural meaning of 
the word. The last writer on the animals of classical 
antiquity (Ὁ. Keller, Thicre des classischen Alter- 
thums, Ὁ. 467) suggests the serin finch, a near 
relation of the canary. No ornithologist, I think, 
would admit the appropriateness of Homer's lines to 
any finch: and I prefer to think that the poet was 
thinking of the true nightingale, and that the 
scholiasts were not far wrong. 

W. WaARDE Fow Ler. 
* * 
* 

HorAct.—d47s Poetica, 349. 

Nam neque chorda sonum reddit quem vult manus et 
mens, 

Poscentique gravem persacpe remittit acutum ; 

Nec semper feriet quodeumque minabitur arcus. 

There are three objections to the middle line of 
these three: 

(a) Horace is speaking of small faults, ‘quibus 


ignovisse velimus.’ But this line describes a very 
serious one and is therefore inappropriate. 


(8) If this line be kept, either Horace was egre- 
giously ignorant of the musical art or his contempo- 
raries were enormous bunglers at it. What should 
we think of a poet nowadays who should assert that 
a violinist (any violinist) often played by mistake 
on the G string for the A? Yet this is just about the 
same thing. Ἶ ἢ 

(γ) The omission of semper in the first line is quite 
intolerable if we have to wait for another whole line 
before it comes ὄψε κακῶς in the last. But if the 
middle line is omitted, the semper easily goes with 
both reddit and ferict. 

There are strong reasons then for regarding line 
349 as an interpolation inserted to explain the 
tolerably perspicuous line which precedes. 


Ἂς PrAiT 
* * 
ΕἼ 


Propertivs II. xxxiv. Lines 30, 34, 40, contain 
a strange repetition which gives evidences either of 
corruption, or of the unfinished and unsettled state 
of the poem. 

30 has magno — amore. 

34 has magno — amore in exactly the same position 
in the pentameter. 

40 has magno also in same place in the line. 

43. includere. P’s componere evidently comes 
from line 41, to which the scribe’s eye was attracted 
by the similarity of the endings thwrno and torno. 

70. Paley’s note is: impressis = non pressis, 
νημέλκτοις. Can this be correct ? Surely impressis = 
simply pressed. 

91. Lycoride—vulnera is what Postgate calls a 
sub-construction bracketed off from the rest of the 
sentence, = vulnera a Lycoride data. The participle 
is omitted as in IJ. xxxii. 23, rumor ad aures 


(adlatus). 5. E. WINBOLT. 
os 


‘TrRisTIA.—Mr. Owen in his recent edition has 
suggested that ‘ tristia’ is a translation of μέλεα and 
that μέλεα should be read for μέλη in the list of Cal- 
limachus’ works given by Suidas. There are at least 
three objections to this view :— 

(a) μέλεα is a poetical word and the titles of books 
among the Greeks were rarely, if ever, fanciful or 
sensational. ἀπολοφυρμοί or the like is what one 
would expect. 

(0) μέλεα would be ambiguous and a poet who chose 
it for a title would invite his enemies to say that his 
poems were κάρτ᾽ émévvua—miserable, infelicitous 
productions. 

(c) There is no great difficulty in explaining Μέλη 
in Suidas. See Schneider, Callimachea, II. p. 18. 

But though Callimachus never wrote a poem called 
“ μέλεα,᾽ it is still possible that Ovid was translating 
μέλεα. There seems to have been a belief, in Lesbos 
if not elsewhere, that μέλη was to be derived from 
μέλεα. The authority for this is a Lesbian mytho- 
grapher Myrsilos, in Cramer’s Anecd. Oxon. I. p. 285 : 
Μυρσίλος δὲ Tas ἐν Λέσβῳ γενομένας παρθένους Μούσας 
ἐπὶ τὰ πένθη φοιτᾶν καὶ θρηνεῖν: ὕθεν ἐπεκράτησε τὸ τὰ 
ἀδόμενα μέλεα κληθῆναι. If Ovid knew this story, it 
may have suggested to him his title ‘tristia,’ or he 
may have known the etymelogy and not the story ; 
for if he had known the latter, he would almost cer- 
tainly have alluded to it (the Muses were trained by 
Megaclo to appease by their singing the wrath of 
her father Macar: see last number of the Philologus 
where the Lesbian story of the Muses is discussed at 
length and from which I take the reference for Myr- 
silos). But all this is baseless conjecture. 

W. ἢ, Harpie. 


* * 
* 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 51 


LIDDELL AND ScorT’s GREEK LEXICON : Corrigenda 
ΤΙ. 

ἀγκύλη. 2.—Under this heading we find the phrase 
ἀγκυλόγλωσσον πάθος, explained as ‘a similar disease 
of the tongue’: but ἀγκυλόγλωσσος deserves a 
separate place, such as it has in the Dictionaries of 
Hedericus, Alexandre, &c. In Hed. we find ἀγκυλό- 
yAwooor, ov, τὸ, linguae impedimentum: ἀγκυλό- 
yAwooos, ov, ὃ καὶ 7, pracpeditam habens linguam. 
Alex, gives first the adj., which he explains ‘affligé 
dune ankyloglosse ; ii. subst. ankyloglosse, vice de la 
langue génée par le filet.’ 

ἀκηδής 11.---11. 21, 123 is cited thus—oaw’ ἀπολιχ- 
μήσονται : it should be αἷμ᾽ aoa. 

ἁλίσκομαι 2.—In quotation from Xen. Hell. 1, 1, 
23 the order of the words is inaccurate: it should be 
γράμματα πεμφθέντα ἑάλωσαν εἰς ᾿Αθήνας. 

auepyw.—In the quotation from Theocr. 26, 3 read 
ἀμερξάμεναι, instead of masculine forra. 

oud0ev.—The words cited from Od. 1, 10 are thus 
rendered—‘ of which from what source soever...tell us 
also.’ It should rather be (‘starting) from some part 
(or ‘ point’) in these events’ &c. It was thus that 
the Sch. understood 1{---ἀπό τινος μέρους ἀρξαμένη. 

ἀπόζω.--- ον the construction of this verb with the 
gen. reference should have been made to Luc. Dial. 
Mf. 1, 5. 

apreuns.—In the quotation from Od. 13, 43 the 
order of words is incorrect; read σὺν ἀρτεμέεσσι 
φίλοισιν. 

βασανίζω II. 3.—The metaphorical meaning of the 
verb is confined in L. and S. to the perf. pass. part. ; 
but reference should be given to Longinus de Subl. 
10 sub fin. τὸ ἔπος ὁμοίως ἐβασάνισεν. 

BiBnut.—The form βίβαντι is represented as 3 plur. 
on authority of Epigr. Lacon. in Ahrens ; but Ahr. 
11, 312 describes it as ‘tertia singularis,’ which is 
evident from the epigram (see Pollux 4, 102)— xiar 
ἅδε ποκὰ βίβαντι, πλεῖστα δὴ τῶν πήποκα. The same 
error is committed by Veitch, Greek Verbs, p. 116, 
though probably one was copied from the other. 

Taijios.—In quotation from Od. 7, 324 we find 
Taniov υἱόν (where the dizresis is marked, thongh not 
at beginning) ; read Γαιήιον. 

δάμνημι.---Ἴ1. 14, 199 is misquoted in the word 
ἀθανάτως : it should be ἀθανάτους. 


5wuds.—The authority quoted is ‘ Epilye. Kor. 2’ ; 
but the title of Epilycus’s play was Κωραλίσκος : the 
abbreviation therefore should be Kwp. It will be 
found correctly given s.v. Bapaé. 

ἐνίημι 11. intr.—After the citation from Xen. Cyr. 
add ib. Hell. 2, 4, 32. 

ἔρρω II. 3.—In the quotation from Xen. Hell. 1, 
1, 23 ‘ Mindarus’ is credited with the famous laconic 
despatch which announces his own death. For ‘ Min- 
darus’ read ‘ Hippocrates.’ 

érepdyAwooos.—In the quotation from 1 Ep. Cor. 
xiv. 21 we read ἑτεγλώσσοις : it should be ἑτερογλώσ- 
cools. 

khp.—For the phrase περὶ κῆρι φιλεῖν, 71, 4, 46 is 
referred to ; but Hom. there has περὶ κῆρι τιέσκετο. 
Here also L. and S. make πέρι parox., whereas under 
περί E they give the same phrase with oxytone. 
Uniformity at least should be observed in the accen- 
tuation. In 71. 13, 480 περὶ κῆρι φίλησε is found. 

κιγκλίς I1.—For sense Ξ- δρύφακτοι we are referred to 
‘Id. Caes. 68’; but the Jast reference was C.J. 481. 
Read Plut. Caes. 68. 

veoxuow.—In quotation from Thue. 1, 12 we read 
νεόχμωσε, the augment being omitted ; it should be 
ἐνεόχμωσε. 

οἰκεῖος B.—oixelws συνεῖναι is given as the equiva- 
lent for Lat. familiariter uti: but a closer reference 
is Xen. Hell. 2, 3, 16 οἰκείως ἐχρῆτο τῷ Θηραμένει. 

παντελής I1].—For παντελῶς with adjs. we are only 
referred to fragments of comic poets; but cf. Xen. 
Hell. 2, 4, 34 π. βαθεῖαν. 

περί E.—rrept κῆρι φιλεῖν is supported by 17]. 19, 
119; but there Hom. writes νεμεσσῶμαι περὶ κῆρι: 
the reference should be 71. 13, 430. 

oipds.—Reference should be given to N. T. 2 Pet. 
2, 4, where the best MSS. read σειροῖς 1.6. ‘dens,’ 
instead of Vulg. σειραῖς. So Alford and Tregelles, 
while Lachmann and Tischendorf read σιροῖς. 
Reference should also be made to Dem. 135, 5 and 
for the form σειρός (a v.d. in Dem.) Pollux 9, 49 ; 
Phot. 504, 23; Varro R. R. 1, 57 and 63. 

ὕω 2.—*So the Greeks used vege’ : read viper. 

φιλέω.---Οα. 14, 146 is cited thus ὃν πέρι κηρὶ φ. 
Ζεύς : but Hom. here has πέρι yap μ᾽ ἐφίλει. More- 
over the accent is incorrect : it should be κῆρι. 

Launcetor 1). DowDALL. 


CLASSICAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES. 


Ill. 


In my two former letters (pp. 77-80, 223-225) a 
description was attempted of the general conditions 
under which classical studies are pursued among us 
and of the work and aims of our representative 
schools. It now remains for me to speak in this, the 
final letter of the series, of classical studies as pursued 
at college and university, 1.6. of the general training 
in these subjects received by candidates for the B.A. 
degree, and of the special training received by candi- 
dates for the higher or professional degree of Ph. D. 
This account will be followed by a few remarks on 
the characteristics of our classical scholarship and on 
our leading philological associations and publications. 

The American youth who comes up to college to 
receive a classical training has seldom carried his 
work at school in Greek and Latin beyond the mere 
requisitions for admission to college: he knows 
something of Greek and Latin grammar; he will have 


read a few books of Xenophon’s Anabasis, two or three 
of Homer's Z/iad, and perhaps a little Herodotus; two 
or three books of Caesar, several orations of Cicero, 
five or six books of Virgil. If he comes from our 
better schools he will have written a little English 
into Greek and English into Latin—continuous nar- 
rative in preference to disjointed sentences—enough 
to show that he has a practical familiarity with 
forms and the leading rules of syntax. He will also 
know something about Greek and Roman history. 
At a few of the better colleges he will be required to 
show his ability to translate ‘at sight,’ without the 
help of grammar or dictionary, passages of average 
difficulty from Attic prose (usually taken from 
Xenophon), and from Homer, and also from Latin 
prose (Caesar) and from Virgil: in these cases the 
quantitative requisition of books is usually waived, 
ability to read independently being alone insisted 
upon. At the leading colleges (Harvard, Yale, ete.), 
a strict examination on these subjects is prescribed 
E 2 


52 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


for candidates ; many of the minor institutions, how- 
ever, as was pointed out in my first letter, admit 
students without examination to the Freshman class, 
on the certificate of their teachers at school that they 
are qualified to enter college. That the quality of 
the preparation for college, as also of the work done at 
the college, differs very widely in different parts of 
the country goes without saying: in the absence of 
common supervision each school and each college is 
a law unto itself. The attainments in classical scholar- 
ship of graduates of equal ability and industry from 
different colleges differ vastly, and this difference 
makes the problem of university or ‘graduate’ instruc- 
tion a difficult one. [Ὁ not unfrequently happens 
that the graduates of one college are found hardly 
more than ready to begin the classical studies in 
other colleges. ‘This unevenness of classical work 
throughout the country is a feature to be deplored ; 
there are, however, encouraging indications of im- 
provement on all sides, which lead friends of classical 
scholarship to believe that our standards of education 
are improved and are everywhere continuing to im- 
prove. The most casual comparison of the curri- 
culum in classical studies of our colleges thirty or 
forty years ago with that of to-day will convince 
one of this fact. It will be impossible in this letter 
to take note of these differences: we must confine 
our remarks to a desciiption of the work and aims of 
the better colleges. 

In our colleges (see p. 78) the course of study for 
the B.A. degree extends through four years, the 
first two years (Freshman and Sophomore) being 
mainly given—where there is a fixed curriculum of 
studies—to the classics, mathematics, and modern 
languages, and the last two years (Junior and Senior) 
to the study of certain of the physical and natural 
sciences, to philosophy, literature, history (political 
and literary), political economy, ete. This pro- 
gramme is greatly modified in colleges where freedom 
in choice of studies either entire or with limitations 
is granted the students. Except with students 
who wish to make something of a speciality of 
the classies, Greek and Latin are not carried beyond 
the close of Sophomore. In fact this period marks 
off a distinct stage in college life: in institutions 
which are able to provide a sufficient number of 
special courses, it is recognized as the point at 
which a student may with profit begin to specialize 
in his work—earlier specialization, at least in the 
majority of cases, being regarded as premature. The 
average student’s attainments at the end of his 
Sophomore year bear some resemblance to those of 
a German youth at the close of his course at the 
Gymnasium. 

In the Freshman year school-methods of instruc- 
tion prevail. Freshman classes are divided into 
small sections (of not more than 25 or 35) which 
receive from three to four hours of weekly instruction 
in Greek and Latin; the same amount of time is also 
given to these subjects in the Sophomore year. 
Lessons are regularly assigned and ‘recited,’ 7.e. 
there is-a daily oral examination on the work set for 
the day, with vivé voce translation. The instruction 
given by the teacher is usually in the form of run- 
ning comment upon the passage read, with an occa- 
sional more formal lecture. The same methods pre- 
vail to a certain extent in Sophomore year, though 
here the range of instruction widens: the work of 
the school and of the Freshman year having developed 
in the student a command of the language, new 
points of view, now made attainable, are taken ; the 
individual form or style of the authors read, their 
subject-matter, and vistas of ancient life and thought 
thereby opened up, are made fruitful and stimulating 
subjects of instruction. 


In the Freshman year, which is not wholly unlike 
Ober-Secunda or Unter-Prima in Germany—except 
that our Freshman will average 191 years of age— 
the usual plan is to divide the line somewhat as 
follows :—in Greek between Homer and Attic prose 
(history or oratory), and in Latin between Livy, 
Cicero and Horace’s Odes. In the Sophomore year 
two or three Greek dramas are read, and certain 
speeches: in Latin, Horace’s Satires and Epistles, 
two or three plays of Plautus or Terence and some- 
thing from Tacitus or Pliny. The programme is 
greatly varied in actual practice.? 

Besides the reading of the prescribed books, and 
gaining a general knowledge of the topics suggested 
by the reading, the average classical student by the 
end of his Sophomore year has done but little. In 
the composition of Greek and Latin prose he has 
advanced only slightly beyond the school stage. At 
colleges where Honours in Classics are arranged for, 
and in the examinations of which there are papers in 
Greek and Latin composition, he will have done 
more: here he will be able to put historical English 
prose into passable Greek or Latin, with no very 
glaring faults of style. At no college—and of course 
not at school—will he have learned verse composition: 
in fact Greek and Latin composition has never formed 
any essential part in our programme of classieal 
studies, though here and there verturesome teachers 
have offered instruction in it. Whether our classi- 
cal scholarship has gained or lost by this omission 
cannot here be argued ; that, however, from its 
failure adequately to develope facility in prose com- 
position, it has lost alike in accuracy and depth, no 
one can dispute. 

As was remarked above, with the close of the 
second of their four years in college the majority of 
American students of the present generation have 
done with their classics. Those only continue (in 
such colleges as provide for advanced work) in whom 
a love for the subject has been awakened ; many of 
these intend to become classical teachers. This change 
in the number and character of students radically 
affects—or should affect—the method of instruction. 
Progress is made on the lines struck out in the Sopho- 
more year toward a more complete independence in 
the student’s activity : the student’s attitude towards 
his books and his teacher gradually changes from 
that of a school-boy learning lessons under a master 
to that of an independent worker engaged in a com- 
mon enterprise with an older,more experienced friend 
and guide. The books and subjects with which clas- 
sical students occupy themselves during these last 
two years in college vary greatly, as also the method 
and aims of classical teachers. In that large number 
of colleges where the provision for advanced classical 


1 At Yale College in 1888-89 the programme for 
Greek and Latin for the Freshman and Sophomore 
class was as follows :— 

FresHMAN YEAR. Greck.—Homer’s Iliad (two 
books) ; Homer’s Odyssey (four books) ; Xenophon’s 
Hellenica (50 pp.) ; Herodotus (50 pp.) ; Lysias (80 
pp.) ; Prose Composition. Latin.—Cicero’s Tusculan 
Disputations (book i) and Selected Letters; Livy 
(books xxi, xxii); Satires of Horace: Prose Compo- 
sition ; History of the Roman Republic. 

SopHomorE YEAR. Greek.—The Antigone of 
Sophocles ; the Agamemnon of Aeschylus ; the Medea 
of Euripides ; the Panegyric of Isocrates ; Thucydides 
(45 pp.); Plato’s Apology and Crito (the Frogs of 
Aristophanes witha special section); Latin.— Agricola 
of Tacitus; Selections from Pliny’s Letters; Odes 
and Epodes of Horace; Trinwmmus and Miles 
Gloriosus of Plautus ; sight reading from Cicero and 
Sallust. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 53 


instruction is necessarily limited and where only a 
few courses are offered, these courses will be confined 
to the leading authors and subjects. In Greek the 
serious study of Demosthenes and of Attic oratory, 
of Plato and the history of Greek Philosophy—Aris- 
totle is almost never read in American colleges—and 
of a number of the more difficult Greek dramas will 
be undertaken. In Latin the historians, Juvenal, 
the philosophical works of Cicero, the more difficult 
comedies of Plautus and Terence, together with liter- 
ary history, form the principal subjects. 

In the larger colleges where a considerable number 
of elective courses in classics are offered, the variety 
in subjects is much greater, as also the degree to 
which specialization is carried. To the books and 
subjects named above will be added eritical work in 
various other branches of classical literature and 
philology, as well as in comparative philology in its 
relations to Greek and Latin. The more enterprising 
of our classical teachers, many of whom are scholars 
who in their professional training either in Germany 
or in this country have become interested in some 
author or subject, frequently take occasion to carry 
on original work in their specialities by offering 
courses in them in which they are aided in their 
researches by their better pupils.? 

The attainments of the students who have con- 
tinued their classical studies up to the time of taking 
their first degree in arts will necessarily vary greatly 
in the different colleges and in the same college. In 
the better institutions such a student will have had 
the opportunity not only of reading widely and under 
good guidance, but also of becoming something of a 
specialist in a particular field of classical studies. 
If we may continue the comparison made above, the 
best of our men, at graduation from college, on an 
average stand on a level with the young classical 
philologian in the German university a year or two 
before he takes his doctors degree; our B.A.’s 
frequently earn this degree upon the close of two or 
three years of advanced study in Germany. If the 
American student pursues his studies at a college 
where Honours in Classics are provided for, or where 
scholarships, fellowships, or other prizes are open 
to properly qualified candidates, and has duly 
received those several recognitions, his work and his 
attainments can be more definitely described. Only 
a few of the leading colleges encourage classical 
studies by provisions of this sort.” 


1 As a rule American college teachers have no large 
amount of leisure for private work. From twelve to 
fifteen hours a week are spent on the average in the 
lecture or ‘recitation’ room : in some colleges twenty 
hours of class-room work in the week is not regarded 
as excessive, 

The number of classical teachers in the different 
colleges varies with the number of students: in the 
smaller colleges two ‘professors’ will give all the 
instruction in Greek and Latin ; ordinarily, however, 
there are at least two instructors, a professor and a 
tutor, for each of these departments, and in the larger 
colleges the classical staff will be made up of as many 
as ten or a dozen officers. It is not usual for an 
instructor to teach both Greek and Latin. 

2 At Harvard there are two grades of Honours in 
Classics, second-year Honours and final Honours. 
The former are open to candidates not earlier than at 
the close of their Sophomore year, and are awarded 
on two conditions. The first condition is distin- 
guished exceHence in classical studies amounting 
to four courses ; the second condition consists in pass- 
ing with distinction a special examination directed 
to testing (a) the candidate’s ability to translate 


The proportion of students reading for these Hon- 
ours to the whole number of candidates for the B.A. 
degree is extremely small. At Harvard, for example, 
out of a Sophomore class of 251 only 14 obtained 
second-year Honours ; and of a graduating class of 
237 only 4 obtained final Honours. Scholarships 
and fellowships are awarded on very different condi- 
tions in the several colleges: the former carry with 
them a smaller stipend (from $50-$350 annually), 
and are given to undergraduates on evidence of merit 
shown either at the regular examinations in the stipu- 
lated departments or at special examinations. Fellow- 
ships bring a larger stipend, ranging from $400 to 
$1,000 per annum, and are commonly awarded for 
not more than one year (renewable once or twice) to 
very recent graduates of marked attainments or 
promise, and frequently without special formal ex- 
aminations. The Fellows are expected to pursue the 
studies of their department either in residence at 
their college or at some European university, From 
approved Fellows the colleges usually recruit their staff 
of instructors. It is perhaps needless to add that 
these ‘Fellows’ stand in a relation to the corporate or 
governing body of their college which is wholly dif- 
ferent from that of the Fellows of an English college 
to their Alma Mater. 

Having taken note of the characteristic features of 
classical education at our colleges, it now remains to 
add a few remarks on the provisions made in the 
United States for the advanced instruction of college 
graduates, an instruction that might be termed pro- 
fessional, inasmuch as it is given mainly to those who 
have in view the profession of teaching. 

The body of teachers in our colleges and secondary 
schools is recruited in a variety of ways. ‘The 
secondary schools are commonly satisfied if they 
obtain as classical instructors promising college 
graduates, who may have received no training beyond 
that received by Bachelors of Arts. The colleges also, 
until within a recent period, have asked for nothing 
more ; at the present time, however, among candi- 
dates for positions in the more reputable colleges, one 
who has received a special training, such as a Doctor 
of Philosophy, has, other things being equal, a dis- 
tinct advantage. 

The ‘graduate,’ (sometimes even called ‘post-gradu- 
ate’) work of our candidates for the Ph. D. degree 
is carried on either in Europe or in the United 
States. The number of our graduates who continue 
their studies in German universities is very large, a 
number sufficient in any one year to fill a university 
of very respectable size. The life, with its studies 
and training, of the American student of classical 
philology in Germany does not differ in any respect 


Greek and Latin at sight (passages taken only from 
the leading classical authors) : (b) his ability to write 
Greek and Latin prose: (c) his knowledge of Greek 
and Latin Grammar. Final Honours in Classics 
awarded at graduation are given for great proficiency 
in Greek and Latin ; the range of reading is extended 
and a much more particular acquaintance with all 
the related topics is expected: a Latin thesis, giving 
evidence of original research, is also required. 

3 Asarule the M.A. in the United States means 
little except that its holder has at some time received 
a B.A. degree. At the better colleges the candidate 
is required to show that he has paid some attention 
to liberal studies for a year or two after receiving his 
B.A. degree. At the university of Virginia, however, 
this degree has a singularly honourable position ; the 
conditions on which it is bestowed are severe, and 
it stands for distinct and high attainments in scholar- 
ship. 


54 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


from that of his German associates, which has been 
well described by Professor Ziegler in the last volume 
of this Review. While undoubtedly a certain amount 
of indulgence is granted by university authorities to 
all foreign students, it is still true that at the best 
institutions the standards are not lowered for their 
benefit. The fact that a large proportion of our 
foremost classical scholars have received much, if 
not the whole, of their university (7.c. post B.A.) 
training in Germany has its distinct influence on the 
character of our higher scholarship. The methods of 
more elementary instruction at school and college are 
perhaps not affected. But in the higher lines, in the 
work of the university lecturer, in the favourite sub- 
jects treated, and in the methods of treatment, the 
influence of German university traditions is most 
striking. The American has more or less of origin- 
ality, but as a rule our advanced work in classical 
philology is after all the German system adapted to 
American conditions. 

Provision for ‘ graduate ’ work in classical philology 
is made by several of our colleges and universities, 
both by setting apart a number of advanced and 
technical courses, open only to approved B.A.’s, 
mainly candidates for the higher degree, and by the 
appointment of professors whose sole duty it shall be 
to give graduate instruction. The universities where 
provision of this sort has been made with greater 
amplitude than elsewhere are Harvard, Yale, and 
Johns Hopkins, to name them in the order of their 
age. The graduate department in each of the two 
former universities is the recent outgrowth of the 
undergraduate department or college proper, while 
that of the Johns Hopkins University is in the original 
foundation. At Harvard and Yale the lines of separa- 
tion between the higher undergraduate and the 
graduate courses are not sharply drawn. In_ the 
number of graduate courses offered and of officers 
giving them, Harvard at the present time is some- 
what in advance; but in point of numbers of students 
pursuing graduate courses in classical philology, the 
Johns Hopkins University has the advantage over all 
other American institutions. 

An outline of the work done at the latter univer- 
sity, condensed from the official statements, with 
supplementary remarks on graduate instruction else- 
where will sufficiently bring out the main features of 
our best professional training in classical philology. 

The instruction in Greek at the Johns Hopkins 
University is directed by Professor Gildersleeve. His 
own courses are given in a seminary which consists 
of the director, fellows and such advanced students 
as shall satisfy the director of their fitness for an 
active participation in the work by an essay, a critical 
exercise, or some similar test of attainments and 
capacity. All graduate students however, have the 
privilege of attending the course. Each regular 
member is required to take his turn as interpreter, 
critic, analyst; and special fields of research are 
assigned according to progress and bent. The student’s 
private reading is so directed that in the usual period 
of preparation for the higher degree a comprehensive 
knowledge of Greek literature and Greek life may be 
gained. By these arrangements the students are 
brought into closer relations with the professor and 
encouraged to perform more independent work and 
engage in more extended experiments than would be 
possible on a system of mere recitation or the simple 
hearing of lectures. Each year some author, or a 
group of closely connected authors, is made the centre 
of work : thus in 1878-79 Lucian ; in 1884-85 the 
Attic Orators ; in 1885-86 Plato and the literary 
form of Greek philosophy ; in 1886-87 Aristophanes ; 
in 1887-88 the Greek Historians, etc. In addition 
to the work of the seminary, courses of lectures are 


given by the director and by other qualified persons 
on a variety of topics. In Latin instruction is given 
on a plan similar to that followed in the Greek 
courses, the director of the seminary being Dr 
Minton Warren. 

In all this advanced work the importance of the 
two aspects of classical studies, the scientific and 
the literary, are kept constantly in view. ‘ Without 
scientific study the cultivation of the literary sense is 
apt to degenerate into finical aestheticism: kept 
apart from the large and liberal appreciation of 
antique life in all its aspects, the scientific study of 
the classic languages divorces itself from sympathy 
with tradition and relinquishes its surest hold on the 
world of culture, on which the structure of the 
university must rest... . . The principle of scientific 
specialization, not only for the mastery of methods 
but for the joy and profit of individual achievement, 
and the other principle of wide and free vision must 
abide.’ 

The Seminary, or Seminariwm, patterned after the 
best German models, notably that of Friedrich 
Ritschl, is a distinctive feature of the graduate in- 
struction at our best universities, and the methods of 
seminary instruction are adopted even in the later 
stages of the undergraduate course. At Harvard the 
Greck and Latin seminary is at present conducted by 
Professors F. D. Allen and ἃ. M. Lane. Besides the 
exercises of the seminary proper which in 1888-9 were 
given to the text-criticism and interpretation of the 
Alcestis of Euripides, and of Persius, graduate 
students within their term of residence receive in- 
struction from these gentlemen, from Professor Good- 
win, and from other members of the classical staff in 
a number of courses, among which may be named 
courses on Aristophanes and Greek Private Life, 
Aristotle’s Politics; Aristotle’s Poetics, Pindar, 
Aeschylus ; Thucydides’ Speeches ; Critical Study of 
Homer’s Iliad; Study in Greek History, from the 
Sources ; Greek Epigraphy ; History of Greek Litera- 
ture ; Legal and Political Antiquities of Greece ; 
Quintilian, Gellius, Latin Inscriptions; Private 
Life of the Romans ; Roman Religion and Worship ; 
Philosophy among the Romans (Cicero and Lucretius); 
History of Latin Literature ; Latin Grammar ; Greek 
and Latin Prose Composition ; Comparative Philology 
as applied to Greek and Latin ; the Elements of 
Sanskrit, ete. 

The degree of Ph.D. in course is the token of the 
succesful completion of an approved course of graduate 
study. The conditions on which it is bestowed in 
the United States are not uniform. In general two 
or more yearsiof graduate study are prescribed, one of 
which at least must be spent in residence. The 
plan of proposed studies must previously have 
received the sanction of the proper authorities, and 
in most instances must provide for three large, and 
not necessarily closely related subjects; one of these is 
the candidate’s chief subject; in which he must show 
satisfactory evidence before receiving his degree that 
he has carried on original research, the results of 
which are presented in a thesis or dissertation, written 
either in Latin, as at Harvard, or in English. Writ- 
ten and oral examinations cover the entire programme 
of work. 

There is no uniform usage as to printing of doctor- 
dissertations: a few of the more meritorious, not only 
of the Johns Hopkins University but also of other 
institutions, have received the hospitality of the 
American Journal of Philology. Several universities 
have lately undertaken the collective publication of 
such contributions to classical philology as might be 
made by their officers and students ; these University 
Studies—as at Harvard, Cornell, and elsewhere—will 
doubtless contain many doctors’ dissertations. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. DD 


It is of course upon the instruction imparted at 
university, college, and school, that our classical scholar- 
ship is based, and itis mainly in intimate connexion 
with these institutions that our classical scholars live 
and, work. ‘There are, however, other agencies that 
promote philological activity among us, such as the 
associations maintained by our scholars and the philo- 
logical publications issued by these associations or as 
private ventures, which we should not leave without 
mention in this survey. 

The American Philological Association is a society 
founded ‘for the advancement and diffusion of philo- 
legical knowledge,’ and of the three hundred and 
_ fitty members the majority are classical teachers. It 
was established in 1869 and holds an annual meeting, 
at a different place each year—usually at a college 
town : a goodly number of papers are presented at 
each session, on a great variety of subjects relating 
not alone to classical philology in the broadest sense 
of this term but also to comparative philology, to 
linguistics and to the modern languages. Many of 
the more important of these papers are printed in 
full in the annual Z'ransactions, and abstracts of all 
the papers appear in the Proceedings. Nearly all the 
foremost classical scholars in the United States, 
with a number from Canada, are members of the 
Association and have contributed to its publications. 
A large number of our younger men have made their 
début at the meetings of ‘the Association in original 
contributions to classical philology. The value of 
this society in encouraging and recognizing indepen- 
dent activity, and in bringing into personal acquaint- 
ance very many persons interested in classical edu- 
cation and in classical research cannot be over- 
estimated. 

The schoolmasters and other teachers in various 
parts of our country are organizcd into State and 
into National Teachers’ Associations. At the meet- 
ings of these bodies, note is taken of many classical 
matters, but usually this is done from the point of 
view of pedagogy. Among the most useful and 
influential of these organizations should be named 
the Association of Colleges and Preparatory Schools in 
New England, at the semi-annual meeting of which the 
improvement of our classical education is a favourite 
theme. 

The union of our leading colleges in support of the 
American School of Classical Studies at Athens— 
which was founded in 1882, and has been since 
maintained by the annual subscriptions of a dozen or 
more colleges—is not without its distinct influence in 
promoting among us the spirit of co-operation and 
common interest. It is perhaps too early to speak of 
the influence that the school itself has exerted upon 
American scholarship: it is certain, however, that 
the growing interest in classical archaeology at many 
of our colleges is due to the school. The project of 
founding at Rome an institute of classical studies for 
students of Roman history and archaeology has not yet 
been put into execution, though it has been seriously 
entertained. The work of the Archaeological Institute 
of America (founded in 1879), in promoting research in 
classic lands, deserves mention (at Assos, Southern 
Italy, etc.) ; much of the most important part of the 
work done under the auspices of the Institute yet 
awaits publication. The American Jowrnal of Archae- 
ology (founded in 1885, and edited by Professor A. 
L. Frothingham of Princeton College) is the official 
organ of the Institute, as well as of the Athens 
Scheol: this quarterly, in addition to printing many 
of the more valuable papers of the Institute and of 
the School in advance of their appearance in the 
Papers, publishes a large number of original contribu- 
tions to archaeology, classical and Christian, by 
writers both at home and abroad. 


Of philological journals in the United States the 
number is very small. The educational journals 
and the literary and theological reviews in which 
classical subjects receive occasional notice are too 
numerous to be mentioned here. Until about ten 
years ago the periodical in which classical matters 
received the fullest and most scholarly treatment was 
the Bibliotheca Sacra (founded in 1844). In 1880 
Professor Gildersleeve founded the American Journal 
of Philology, and has remained its editor ever since ; 
in the ten volumes of this periodical—with the 
twenty volumes of the Transactions of the American 
Philological Association—it is safe to say that we 
have the completest record of the movements and 
tendencies of our classical scholarship at the present 
time, as well as an earnest of future progress and 
achievement. 

To characterize American classical scholarship in 
a sentence or two is a more difficult task than to 
describe the main features of American classical edu- 
cation in numbers of pages. Until the second half, 
or rather until the last quarter, of the present century 
our scholarship can hardly be said to have had any 
distinctive features. Before this time there were 
eminent scholars who left their impress on teachers 
and taught: men like Anthon, whose large but ill. 
digested learning emptied itself into a vast number of 
annotated editions of the classics, which in the day 
of narrow reading and meagre libraries were not 
without their use ; like Woolsey, who left the path 
of brilliant promise as a Greek professor for that of 
yet greater eminence as college president and as pub- 
licist ; like Edward Robinson, who revolutionized, if 
not created, the Science of Biblical Archaeology. 
But these were sporadic cases, without their influence 
on the general movements of thought. Within the 
last twenty years, however, several distinct tendencies 
have shown themselves in our scholarship, due in 
large part to the personal influence of two or 
three of our leading scholars as well as to the spirit 
of the times. The most striking of these tenden- 
cies is the bent for linguistic science, and for the 
treatment of classical subjects from the point of 
view of comparative grammar: it is without doubt 
due, at least initially, to the influence of Professor 
Whitney, who not only in his writings but as pro- 
fessor in Yale College has impressed himself upon a 
large number of our most thoughtful young men. 
This tendency was reinforced by the personality of 
Georg Curtius, whose lectures were largely attended 
by American philological students in Germany. 

A second feature, not wholly to be separated from 
the one last named, is the fondness of our scholars 
for all matters connected with the form of the Greek 
and Latin languages, in other words with questions 
of syntax. 1t is undoubtedly true that Professor 
Goodwin’s Greek Moods and Tenses (first edition, 
1860), an extremely popular book among our teachers, 
and Professor Gildersleeve’s numerous articles (7 γαλι- 
sactions of the American Philological Association, and 
the American Journal of Philology) on Greek syntax,as 
well as his activity as director of the Greek seminary 
at Baltimore, have in great measure given rise and 
direction to that general interest in these subjects 
which entitles us to speak of it as a feature of our 
scholarship. It is perhaps needless to add that the 
influence of these scholars is by no means confined to 
the field here mentioned ; to them and to others 
who cannot here be named is greatly due the impulse 
to a larger and more catholic conception of classical 
philology of which we find many clear evidences at 
every hand. 

Classical scholarship with us hardly exists except 
in connexion with education. The pursuit of it, as 
an independent field of activity, with a view to 


50 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


making distinct and positive contributions to science, 
is as yet in its earliest stages. Hence the literature 
of classical philology in the United States is mainly 
that of college and school text-books (dictionaries, 
grammars, annotated texts). Of these the number 
and variety is great. There is a certain directness 
and practical good sense in the American mind which 
have hitherto shown themselves to best advantage in 
the making of books—and alas! in the working up 
of other men’s books—for use in school and college. 
The defects of undue deference to authority—with its 
attendant willingness to take nearly everything at 
second hand and its disinclination to undertake 
independent investigations and thus to gain indepen- 
dent views—is unfortunately too often a character- 
istic of our work. But there are signs of a better 
day. Our ideals of classical education are being 
raised and, what is of equal if not of greater import- 
ance, our view of the meaning and scope of classical 
hilology is becoming enlarged. We recognize the 
imitations necessarily imposed by our remoteness 
from European libraries and other collections—but 
classical scholarship is more than palaeography and 
epigraphy. The important books, alike the ancient 
texts and their ancient commentators, and the monu- 
mental modern works in which the great masters of 


classical philology have illumined dark stretches of 
ancient thought and activity, and disclosed unsus- 
pected and most significant relations ; the leading 
periodical publications, in which one may follow 
modern scholarship in its swift advance and ever 
broadening conquests—are all within reach of the 
American philologian. If to the acute observation, 
in their historical and formal aspects, of the phe- 
nomena of language, and especially of grammar—that 
θριγκὸς μαθημάτων, as Boeckh, quoted by Professor 
Gildersleeve, has called it—which has given a deserved 
preeminence to two or three of our scholars, we add 
a broad, sympathetic and practical treatment of the 
subject-matter of the ancient books, in its infinite 
variety and range, in its relation to literature, literary 
history, political history, art, philosophy and all 
the other manifold manifestations of ancient thought 
and action, there is no reason why American scholars 
should not have an important part in the enlarge- 
ment of the world’s common knowledge of antiquity, 
and in making this knowlege efficient in enlarging 
beautifying and rendering yet more significant this 

our modern life and thought. 

J. H. Wricur. 
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 
November 21st, 1889. 


C. G. COBET. 


The following is the reply sent by the 
University of Leyden to the Cambridge 
letter of condolence on the death of Cobet, 
printed in our last number. 


Academiae Cantabrigiensis 
Procancellario, Pracpositis, Professoribus, Doctoribus 
Seed: 

Curatores, Rector ct Senatus Acadenviae 
Lugduno-Batavae. 


Litterae ad nos missae, quibus dolorem declara- 
vistis, quo ΟΟΒΕΤῚ Vos affecit obitus, haud leviter nos 
commoverunt. Si quid est, quod animos nostros 
afflictos erigere valeat, verba sunt ista humanitatis ac 
benevolentiae plena, quibus maestitiam nostram ad 
Vos quoque pertinere professi estis. Quod summi 
Viri memoria, quem haec Academia amissum plorat, 
in alma apud Vos Musarum sede pio gratoque animo 
colitur, documento nobis est immortalia eius de lit- 
teris antiquis merita toto pectore sentire Vos et 
agnoscere. 

Profecto luget Coperi e vita excessum quisquis 
mortalium artes et litteras amat atque humanitatis 
studia celebrat. Summa veneratione nomen eius 
memorant omnes, qui recordantur quam multa studia 
illa ingenio eius et industriae accepta referant. 

Inter insignes laudes autem, quae ubicunque 
terrarum singularis Viri memoriae tribuuntur, vix 
ullae magis honorificae putandae sunt, quam quibus 
Vos illam prosecuti estis. Cum enim litterarum apti- 
quarum amore Britanni inter Europae populos 


emineant, tum nobilissimam Vestram Academiam 
praecipuis sedibus adnumerandam esse constat, ubi 
earum studia alantur ac foveantur a Viris egregiis, 
ingenii et doctrinae gloria praestantibus. 

Britannos CoBeTus noster per totam vitam eximie 
dilexit et admiratus est. Permulta eis se debere 
agnovit. Bentleium, Porsonium, Dawesium magis- 
tros suos appellare solebat. Nemo erat inter aequales, 
cui tam studiorum communitate, quam amicitiae 
necessitudine magis se coniunctum sentiret, quam 
Carolo Badham. 

Admirationi autem ac reverentiae, quibus Vestram 
nationem CoBETus coluit, Vos, Viri Clarissimi, verbis 
Vestris amorem et pietatem spirantibus dignas vices 
rependistis. 

Haec fidem nobis faciunt, summum Virum, cuius 
gratissimam memoriam nos semper retenturi simus, 
apud Vos quoque perpetuis posterorum laudibus 
celebratum iri. 

Cum autem sinceras Vobis gratias agamus quod 
nostrum dolorem a Vobis haud alienum duxistis, 
simul omnia laeta Vobis optamus et prospera. 

Utinam per longam saeculorum seriem vetustam 
suam gloriam tueatur illustrissima Academia Cantab- 
rigiensis ! 


L. A. J. W. Suorer, Curatorwm Praeses. 
A. P. N. Francuimont, Academiae Rector. 
σι Κα. HorrMann, Senatui ab actis. 


Datum Lugduni Batavorum 
pridie Nonas Decembres 
A. S. MDCCCLXXXIX. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 57 


OTT UA REY. 
DR. POTTS. 


By the death of Dr. Potts on the 15th of 
November last, Fettes College has lost some- 
thing more than its first Headmaster. The 
man who successfully undertakes the 
supreme care of any new school will 
always have some of the honour which 
belongs to a founder; and Dr. Potts had 
the distinction of being entrusted with the 
working out of what was, in Scotland, a 
novel and, at first, a not very popular idea. 

Dr. Potts was born in 1834 and was edu- 
cated at Shrewsbury under Dr. Kennedy and 
at St. John’s College, Cambridge. In 1858 
he graduated a senior optime and second 
classic, winning also the junior Chancellor’s 
medal and becoming a Fellow of St. John’s. 
After taking his degree he became a master 
first at Charterhouse and then at Rugby. 
From Rugby he came in 1870 to Fettes 
College. 

Although the school was the first Public 
School of the English type in Scotland, it 
can hardly be said that there was any active 
demand for it. True it was that many 
Scotch parents desired an English Public 
School education for their sons. But this 
desire was in most cases coupled with a 
certain dread of provincialism which led them 
still to prefer a southern school, especially 
as to ordinary boys Fettes College offered no 
advantages in the way of economy. It was 
Dr. Potts’ principal task to win for the new 
school a position distinct from that of an 
English Public School inconveniently situ- 
ated. He wished to acclimatize it as a 
Scotch institution to flourish side by side 
with the native public schools. In the most 
jealous community to be found in the British 
Isles this was an object which could not be 
realized at once, and Dr. Potts never 
claimed to have thoroughly realized it. But 
he made great and striking progress towards 
that end, and had the satisfaction long before 
his death of witnessing the University suc- 
cesses of many Scotch pupils who, had it not 
been for Fettes College, would probably have 
followed other paths. 

Dr. Potts is perhaps best known to the 
world as author of Hints towards Latin Prose 
Composition, a book which was the first to 
place the results attained by German erudition 
in this field of research, by Nigelsbach and 
others, within the reach of English students ; 
and these results it presented in a fresh and 
incisive form, re-casting them in the mould 
which the fine literary instinct of English 


scholarship can alone supply. Other books 
on Latin prose style have since appeared, 
each with merits of its own; but the Hints 
may claim to have marked an epoch in the 
teaching of Latin Prose such as no other 
book has made. ΤῸ those who had been 
reared on the old ‘ Latin Arnold’ it came as 
a revelation. No one can read it without 
gaining a clearer insight into Roman charac- 
ter and its reflection in the language of Rome. 

In his own Sixth Form teaching, how- 
ever, Dr. Potts paid more attention to the 
cultivation of Latin and Greek verse; with 
what success the achievements in this line of 
his old pupils at Cambridge will have shown. 
In this no doubt he was true to Shrewsbury 
traditions. But besides that, the natural 
bent of his mind led him to set more store 
by that literary sympathy with classical 
feeling and that versatility of expression 
which verse-composition especially brings 
into play, than by flawless and terse diction. 
As an educator he was brilliant rather than 
methodical; he taught as he talked ; there 
was an exuberant flow of fancy, wit, and 
anecdote ; his mind was of that order which 
is more quick to note resemblances than 
differences ; he had a poet’s imagination and 
an artist’s eye for beauty. Those who heard 
him in school translate and almost declaim 
his Demosthenes, translate and almost act 
his Plautus and Aristophanes, could not fail 
to catch some of his enthusiasm. 

He was essentially conservative in his 
methods and ideal of education. He taught 
the classics as literature —always with a 
view to knowledge οἵ men and life. Not 
that he ever condoned inaccuracy or was 
satisfied with the ‘ general sense’ in transla- 
tion ; but he never forgot that a poem or 
speech is a work of art which must be appre- 
ciated as a whole, and not merely considered 
in its details. Htymology was interesting 
to him in so far as it illustrated the meaning 
and history of a word, but he took no real 
interest in the shifting phases of the science 
of Comparative Philology, and refused to 
treat the classical languages as a herbarium 
in which dried specimens are kept in cases 
and labelled for comparison with Erse or Old 
Zend. Even in matters of grammar and 
syntax he trusted more to his own fine in- 
stinct for style than to methodical research 
and tabulation of instances. Nor did he pay, 
at any time of his life, any special attention 
to the study of textual criticism. Some of 


58 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


this may possibly be explained by want of 
leisure. Fine scholar as he was, he was a 
schoolmaster before everything else: he 
threw himself heart and soul into the life of 
the school, and this, as he conceived and 
made it, was many-sided enough to engross 
his energies. 

He did not read a large number of books 
with his Sixth Form, but what he did, he read 
with minute care. He never ceased to insist 
upon the necessity of private reading, and 
frequently quoted in that behalf the precepts 
and example of his own Headmaster. The 
Sixth Form of Dr. Kennedy at Shrewsbury 
was his ideal of what, for scholarly feeling, 
a Sixth Form should be. He never wearied 
of impressing upon his own pupils the indus- 
try which had been required of himself 
while a Sixth Form boy. For this purpose 
he would recall, often with a very happy 
representation of his voice and manner, how 
after finishing a book of Thucydides Dr. 
Kennedy would quietly say, ‘You can read 
the other seven books in your studies.’ 

Apart from his power of teaching Dr. 
Potts had great gifts as a Headmaster. He 
was a man whose commendation could not 
but be prized, and whose censure no one 
could affect to receive without concern. No 
man knew better than he what to pass over 
and what to notice. Always open and 
trustful, he was, even when finding fault, 
courteous, considerate and moderate. Hence 
his great and lasting power. There was no 
reaction from his influence. His pupils 


never outgrew his teaching. And he com- 
manded respect by showing it. 

No account of Dr. Potts, however brief, 
would be complete without some reference 
to his character as a preacher. The religious 
situation of Fettes College rendered the 
superintendence of the chapel service a 
matter of the greatest delicacy. It was a 
lay service designed to disarm the jealousy 
of rival denominations. Nothing could 
have been happier than the way in which 
the exigences of the case were met both in 
the pulpit and in the reading-desk. Dr. 
Potts was a preacher of great power and 
occasionally of true eloquence, and a reader 
of more than usual dignity and impressive- 
ness. The chapel at Fettes College became 
popular with parents, and it is perhaps not 
too much to say that it was there that much 
of the prejudice which the school had to fight 
against was removed. 

To conclude this notice of a really gifted 
teacher it only remains to say that his 
interests and sympathies were universal. 
As he was broad and general in his teach- 
ing, so he was widely appreciative of merit. 
He took pride in the success of his pupils in 
whatever career it was attained. Good 
work was to him good work on whatever 
expended, He would mention the name of 
a pupil who in a house of business had 
gained the confidence and esteem of his 
employers as proudly as that of a University 
prizeman. And he was held in honour as 
much by the one character as by the other. 


BROWNING AS A CLASSICAL 


No great poet has ever made himself 
interesting to so many kinds of students, on 
their purely technical and __ professional 
ground, as Mr. Browning. Philosophers, 
painters, musicians, Italian historians, 
German historians, ecclesiastical historians, 
Hebraists, all have a large part in him, and 
certainly not the smallest share in the in- 
heritance belongs to the student of Greek 
(scarcely perhaps of Latin) antiquity. In 
general, it may be observed, as an interest- 
ing comment on the supposed ‘decline of 
Greek,’ that the half-dozen great indisputable 
poets of our time, all till yesterday writing 
together, have been passionate Hellenists, 
and not least popular when they were most 
Hellenic, In this respect, if in no other, 
Mr. Browning stood in a line with the 
authors of Zithonus and Jason, Atalanta in 
Calydon and the Strayed Reveller, 


SCHOLAR. 


In his writings there are two separate 
strata of classical learning, sharply separ- 
ated from each other—the original store of 
memories that -he retained from his early 
reading,{and the special studies of the period 
that began with Balaustion’s Adventure 
(1871) and ended with the translation of the 
Agamemnon (1877) ; but the after-effects of 
this second period re-appeared at intervals 
for the rest of his life. In both these strata 
antiquity is treated in a way peculiar to Mr. 
Browning. No great poet ever absorbed so 
much with so little effect on himself. His 
classical learning, whether of his youth or 
of his declining manhood, had no more power 
than the Italian learning of his prime or the 
Rabbinical learning of his old age to make 
the least change in the ideals of his imagin- 
ation or in his way of looking at life, nay, 
not even in his literary form, whether of 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 59 


composition or of style. Such as he came 
forth full-grown in Paracelsus, such he re- 
mained in Asolando, progressing royally 
through innumerable worlds of imagination, 
but in all of them not a colonist but a con- 
queror, taking no impress from any, but 
bending them all to the purposes of his 
imperial will. In other words, we must go 
to him, not to know what antiquity was like, 
but what kind of thoughts it inspired in 
him. 

Of course the same thing is true of all 
great imaginative artists ; their imaginative 
re-constructions of the past are not to be 
read as works of instruction for the sake of 
information about the past. But Mr. 
Browning seemed to.be bent on throwing 
away the poet’s privilege, and presenting his 
research to be judged on its own prosaic and 
scientific merits. And so we are continually 
distracted. The poet who stands the most 
remote from the Greeks in his essential 
character gives us the most of the Greeks in 
outward detail. Any mind less compre- 
hensive than his own must be content with 
realizing alternately what he realized all at 
once, on the one side the ‘then’ and ‘ there’ 
of Athenian civilization, drawn out into its 
transitory and trivial particulars, on the 
other side the essential spiritual issues, 
which to us are not truly spiritual or essen- 
tial until they are made freely and frankly 
modern. 

In the first period (1.6. before 1871) it is 
easy to search out all his ancient references, 
for they are all definitely,recognizable. He 
adds a proper name or a description of an 
incident ; it is the very rarest thing with 
him to absorb an ancient phrase into the 
current of his language without giving 
notice of it, in the manner of Milton and 
Tennyson. Attentive reading may discover 
other instances ; the only one that I have 
observed in this period is in Paracelsus (p. 
83. ed. 1872), ‘Save a thin corpse at pleasure 
of the wind,’ which I imagine to be a remi- 
niscence of ventis Jludibrium datur and 
αἰθέριον kivvypa. And the list of his refer- 
ences 15 certainly equivalent to a statement 
of the things which interested him in the 
classics. Throughout his life, everything is 
explicit with him ; he talks about everything 
that he cares for. If we listened to his 
earliest declaration in Pauline, we should 
think that he loved all the Greek poets 
alike ; there we have the ‘ high-crested chief, 
Sailing with troops of friends to Tenedos,’ 
and ‘the king, Treading the purple calmly 
to his death,’ and ‘how she, The fair pale 
sister, went to her chill fgrave, With power 


to love and to be loved and live,’ and the 
hero even professes to have ‘lived with 
Plato’ and to ‘have the key to life.’ But 
in all the subsequent works, up to 1871, the 
one ancient whom Mr. Browning really loves 
is Aeschylus ; ‘the thunder-phrase of the 
Athenian, grown Up out of memories of 
Marathon,’ ‘ You, who, Plataea and Salamis 
being scant, Put up with Aetna for a stimu- 
lant,’ ‘the halt and maimed Iketides,’ ‘ who 
made his Titan’s arch-device The giving men 
blind hopes to spice The meal of life with,’ 
even St. John in the Death in the Desert 
must refer to ‘that fable of Prometheus and 
his theft,’ and yet further to ‘those satyrs 
of his play, Who touched it in gay wonder at 
the thing.’ There is nothing like the same 
wealth of reference to any other author. 
Homer is mentioned a few times with great 
but rather conventional reverence (one 
quotation in Pippa Passes); the future 
destiny of Euripides is scarcely foreshadowed 
in Artemis Prologizes (1842), and in the lovely 
passage in Waring (1842) which summarizes 
the history of Iphigeneia. Sophocles, as 
we have seen, had his place in Pauline, but 
he never appears again in all this period. 
Plato, with whom Pauline’s lover had ‘ lived,’ 
onlyappears once: ‘ I would fain...in all God’s 
acts (as Plato cries He doth) He should 
geometrize’ (Christmas Eve and Easter-Day). 

Besides direct reference to authors, there 
are references to historical and mythical 
story, but these generally look as if they 
came from common knowledge rather than 
from actual classical reading. One group of 
such references is specially important, those 
which rest not on literature at all but on 
works of art. Even in Pauline the long 
description of Andromeda, and the adjective 
in the ‘naked Swift-footed,’ already show 
that to the poet’s mind the ancient world is 
embodied in statues not less than in poems. 
After Pauline, his long years in Italy deep- 
ened and deepened his pre-occupation with 
art; all his conception of some important 
Greek figures, Apollo, Herakles, Niobe, seems 
to be derived from art, not from literature 
at all. 

It may be noticed also that not only an- 
tiquity itself but the modern re-discovery of 
antiquity had at one time a strong fascin- 
ation for him. We cannot now recover the 
amount of study which he had given to the 
more northern and medieval side of the 
Renaissance, because it was very soon ab- 
sorbed by the overmastering attraction of 
the same movement in Italy ; but it is em- 
bodied beyond all possibility of under-estimate 
in Paracelus and the Grammarian’s Funeral, 


00 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Paracelsus could only despise ‘ the meanest 
plodder Trithemius quotes a marvel,’ but 
that was not the judgment of Paracelsus’s 
creator. Perhaps the philologist who mag- 
nifies his vocation the most can scarcely take 
to himself the lines that tell of one who 
‘knew the signal, and stepped on with pride 
Over men’s pity,’ who ‘throws himself on 
God, and unperplexed Seeking shall find 
Him,’ whose place was ‘ where meteors shoot, 
clouds form, Lightnings are loosened, Stars 
come and go.’ But there the lines remain, a 
trumpet-call to the greatest of us and a 
consolation to the meanest, the everlasting 
charter of the scholar. 

As we have seen, a new period begins in 
1871, the period of minute study of Euripides 
and Aristophanes. It might be suggested 
that he had studied them before, but I must 
repeat the remark that he would have men- 
tioned them if he had. We must take his 
new departure in writing as a new departure 
in reading. It can be no secret how 
Balaustion’s Adventure came to be written. 
After Mrs. Browning’s death he never 
shrinks from acknowledging her inspiring 
presence in all his work, and in this case he 
takes pains to make the connexion clear by 
the prefixed motto. But in truth the motto 
was not wanted. In the epilogue, where 
Balaustion lets her fancy play round the 
story of Alcestis, the poet is revealing the 
story of his own life. Alcestis must be sent 
back to the earth because when she left 
Admetus the powers of her soul were added 
to his, and he became strong beyond human 


due. ‘Two souls in one were formidable 
odds. Admetos must not be himself and 
thou.’ Under that figure he has shown us 


his own soul, passing through those twenty- 
eight lonely years strengthened with the 
strength of the Alcestis who did not 
return. 

Coming to the study of Euripides in this 
way, as a sacred legacy from Mrs. Browning, 
he could not fail to see in him higher things 
than the mass of critics have seen. Where 
Euripides gave a comic turn to the traditional 
mythology, it was to bring the underlying 
solemnity into sharper prominence ; where 
he marshalled the opposing arguments with 
wire-drawn volubility, it was to follow up 
the self-deceiving soul into its remotest 
hiding-place. Let us not say that this was 
wrong. A poet who is also a philosopher 
and a prophet has a right to see philosophy 
and religion that we cannot see in the works 
of another poet. In Mr. Browning’s case 
the vision was helped by a theory which he 
seems to have held with ever-strengthening 


conviction, that a poet who could move him 
to admiration must be fundamentally the 
same kind of poet as himself. However 
this may have been, he was inevitably led 
from Euripides to his contemporary critic ; 
and so he gave two or three years to that 
exhaustive reading of Greek comedy, with 
all its scholia, fragments, and commentaries, 
which is turned out pell-mell in the pages of 
Aristophanes’s Apology. Within its own 
field, the poem is the most astounding monu- 
ment of erudition. Who was Saperdion 4 
Where in Greek literature does νεβλαρέται 
occur as an exclamation? (Mr. Browning 
once answered this question by referring a 
correspondent to a fragment of Alexis, 
before the word had made its way into 
Liddell and Scott.) The erudition is astound- 
ing, certainly. But is the main contention 
tenable? Can we imagine Aristophanes de- 
fending his artistic method as he does here ? 
Nay, can we imagine him defending it at all? 
Mr. Browning errs in good company, with 
Heine and Mr. Symonds and Mr. Swinburne, 
but the truth is that the Weltvernichtungsidee 
is a mare’s nest. All these learned and 
ingenious critics have gone astray because 
they could not bring themselves to realize 
that the ‘secret of Aristophanes’ is a secret 
of pure and simple frivolity. To go back to 
a former remark, Mr. Browning has drawn 
out the spiritual issues which were involved 
in the contest between comedy and _ philo- 
sophic tragedy ; but as to understanding the 
personality of Aristophanes, that would be 
better done by Mr. Burnand. 

It is right also, and surely not irreverent 
even at this moment, to point out that Mr. 
Browning’s Greek learning is as narrow as 
it is wonderful. We might have thought 
that Aristophanes and Euripides would have 
led to some of their great contemporaries. 
But πο. Aeschylus Mr. Browning knew 
already. Sophocles of course has to be 
brought in, but only with the indispensable 
minimum of reference ; Plato is mentioned 
half-a-dozen times (always as ‘ Aristullos ’) 
but only in connexions which suggest books 
on Aristophanes rather than his own writ- 
ings; where Socrates is mentioned, no say- 
ing recorded by Plato or Xenophon is ever 
quoted; the one mention of Thucydides 
(‘Thoukudides invent his epitaph’) is 
obscurely worded, but I cannot help suspect- 
ing that Mr. Browning had forgotten his 
exile. 

In short, Mr. Browning’s knowledge of 
Greek literature was narrow. But that was 
his way with his knowledge of everything. 
Most of us know first the highways, and 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 61 


then a few of the by-ways. Mr. Browning 
used to know every inch of one highway 
with all its associated by-ways, and never 
set his foot on any other highway in the 
same region. If he had beena zoologist, he 
would have known all about lions and no- 
thing about tigers. Of course, this is no dis- 
paragement to his greatness. His true field 
was not learning but life. Only, why could 
he not have read some Plato? Our wistful 
fancy cannot help framing some shadow of 
the transformed Republic and interpreted 
Phaedrus, for which we could have spared, 
perhaps, the refutation of Bubb Doding- 
ton and the divagations of the Famille 
Miranda. 

Besides interpreting Greek tragedy, he 
translated it. The translations of the Alcestis 
(in Balaustion) and the Hercules Furens (in 
Aristophanes’s Apology) and the Agamemnon 
are interesting, because they show us what 
works he loved and what his theory of trans- 
lation was. It is doubtful whether it 
would have been a safe theory for any trans- 
lator ; certainly it was not a safe theory for 
Mr. Browning. ΤῸ translate word for word 
and yet into beautiful verse, a translator 
must have an ear filled and a mind pre- 
occupied with minnte effects and delicate 
experiments in language ; in short, he must 
be something that Mr. Browning never was. 
Moreover, he cared for the main matter too 
much to satisfy this fastidious generation in 
respect of ‘settling /oti’s business’ and 
‘properly basing own.’ In short, these trans- 
lations represent his play, not his work. 

After the Agamenmon (1877) he did not 
write on the Greek drama again. But the 
impulse of his great Greek period remained. 
His later volumes are full of both Greek 
subjects and Greek references. One thing 
that he has learned, from his own interpret- 
ing of Euripides, is a new interest in myth- 
ology. (‘A myth may teach. Only, who 
better would expound it thus Must be Euri- 
pides, not Aeschylus.’ Parleyings, Mandeville.) 
Besides smaller references, there are the pro- 
logue to the Parleyings, with its rehand- 


ling of Admetus’s story, and Jaion (Jocoseria), 
with its conversion of the transgressor 
into a newer and more human Prometheus. 
But also there isa word in Gerard de Lotresse 
(Parleyings) for those who might think that 
we must go back to myths for all our poetry. 
Outlying stories that he found in his great 
researches are worked up in Lchetlos and 
Pheidippides. He is still constant to the 
Aeschylus of his youth, and especially to 
the Prometheus, and to these he adds Pindar 
and Homer, quoting all three in Roman 
letters in the midst of his verse. From 
Homer he is led to consider the ‘ Homeric 
question,’ and uses it characteristically to 
show forth in allegory the religious edu- 
cation of mankind (Asolando, Developments). 
In this period, for the first time in his life, 
he begins to add Latin to Greek. He ex- 
pands three playful lines of Virgil into the 
weird and pathetic mystery of Pan and Luna 
(Dramatic Idylls, 11.). He refers three times 
to Juvenal (once in Pacchiorotto, twice in 
Pietro of Abano), (if I am right in so inter- 
preting ‘Sylla cuts a figure, leaving olf 
dictating,’ and ‘ while the half-mooned boot 
we boast’). But his pre-eminent Latin poet 
is Horace. Time after time he quotes him, 
and incorporates his Latin into the verse 
(‘ You’ve wine, manhood’s master! Well, 
‘rectius si quid Novistis impertite!’ Wait 
the event,’ where I cannot free my mind 
from a gruesome suspicion of dmpertite). 
The final fruit of his Latin reading 15 
Imperante Augusto (Asolando), of which 
nothing less can be said than that it might 
stand in Men and Women. Whether the 
subject-citizens of Augustus spoke exactly 
like this is as indifferent as the question 
whether Cardinal Wiseman defended himself 
like Bishop Blougram, or Andrea del Sarto 
felt himself dragged back from immortality 
by his wife. We may not have the situa- 
tion as the Romans conceived it, but we 
have it as they would have conceived it, if 
they had had a poet great enough to show 


them how. 
T. C. Snow. 


To the Evrror of the CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


DEAR SIR, 


The enclosed lines, addressed to Mr. Robert Browning, and accompanying a little volume of Greek 
verse, were very graciously received by him last summer, and may on that account have some interest for 


your readers at the present time. 
Ὦ paxape, ὅστις παντὸς ἀνθρώπου μαθὼν 
ψυχήν τε καὶ φρόνημα καὶ γνώμην, λόγοις 
ἐν ποικίλοις τε καὶ καλοῖς ἐφημίσω, 
ὅσαις θ᾽ ὃ χρηστὸς φροντίσιν μάτην πονεῖ, 
ὅ τ᾽ αὖ πανοῦργος ἀθλίως θυμοφθορεῖ, 


LEWIs CAMPBELL. 
χὠ μικτὸς ἀμφοῖν οἷον ἐξαντλεῖ βίον 
γραφαῖς ἀριστ᾽ ἔδωκας ἐξῃκασμένον, 

- ἄρ᾽ ἂν δέχοιο καινὰ δὴ μιμήματα 
ἔργων παλαιῶν γνωρίμων τέ σοι τάδε, 
μνημεῖ᾽ ἔμοιγε φιλτάτης ὁμιλίας ; 


62 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


BISHOP LIGHTFOOT’S LITERARY WORK AT DURHAM. 


Not many generations have passed since a 
Bishopric was regarded as the natural goal 
of a scholar’s life, in which, with much 
leisure and a few occasional routine duties, 
he might devote himself almost exclusively 
to his studies. But those days have happily 
passed away, and the present danger is rather 
that in the demand for practical men of 
business capacity the claims of scholarship 
to be duly represented in the highest posts 
of the Church should be passed over, The 
calls upon a Bishop’s time and energies are 
simply endless: the enormous growth of 
population during the past twenty or thirty 
years in most of the English dioceses has by 
no means been met by a few tardy subdi- 
visions; and the administrator of a large 
diocese has his hands so full, that it seems 
an impossibility for him to save any time for 
literary work. Every parish demands indi- 
vidual attention, and looks for at least 
occasional personal visits; Confirmations 
must be multiplied until they are held 
annually within reach of every parish ; there 
is not a Church Society but looks to the 
Bishop to champion its cause in various 
centres ; Conferences, Committees, Organi- 
zations, Gatherings of special bodies, etc. 
tend to increase on every side; while the 
daily post alone brings in enough work to 
employ the time of one man. In such a life 
as this, how is it possible for a Bishop, how- 
ever gifted, to secure any leisure for literary 
work ? 

It was such considerations as these that 
aroused a serious anxiety in every quarter, 
when the announcement appeared in the 
newspapers on January 28, 1879 that 
Professor Lightfoot had accepted the see of 
Durham in succession to Dr. Baring. With 
regard to the episcopal appointment, as such, 
the news was greeted with universal sitis- 
faction; but it was felt that the price 
would be altogether too great to pay fer a 
powerfui administrator in the Church if Dr. 
Lightfoot’s new responsibilities should pre- 
vent him from giving to the world any more 
of the eagerly expected results of his life- 
work on the writers of the New Testament 
and the Apostolic Fathers. A scholar of 
less note, it was urged, might well be found 
to organize and guide even such a great and 
difficult diocese as that of Durham; but no 
one could fill Dr. Lightfoot’s place as a 
teacher and an expositor. 

In the three months which intervened be- 
tween his appointment and his consecration, 


while he was still at Cambridge, letters 
kept continually pouring in upon the 
Bishop-elect from all manner of correspond- 
ents, imploring him to find time in some 
way or another to continue his literary 
labours ; and Dr. Westcott’s sermon at the 
consecration of his friend in Westminster 
Abbey, in which he sketched the ideal of a 
Bishop’s work, contained an earnest plea for 
patient thought and study and wise counsel 
on deeper subjects than mere diocesan 
detail or development. To one and all of 
these appeals the Bishop himself returned 
one steadfast answer ; ‘he had not accepted 
the oversight of the diocese to neglect its 
duties. Experience would show, but he 
would not venture to predict, whether any 
time would be left him to continue his 
literary work.’ 

Accordingly from his first entering on his 
new sphere he devoted himself unflinchingly 
to the administration of his diocese; and 
frequently for weeks or even months at a 
time he found it impossible in the pressure 
of other work to secure any leisure for 
literary production. While however 
throughout his episcopate his diocese held 
the first and paramount position in Bishop 
Lightfoot’s thought and energy, he consist- 
ently kept before him as only a secondary 
responsibility the urgent claim which rested 
upon him as a scholar and a theologian to 
strive earnestly to finish the work which he 
had undertaken before he became a Bishop. 
It was this constant sense of a great duty 
incumbent upon him that led him to devote 
every leisure hour that could be spared 
from diocesan work to the prosecution of his 
literary labours. 

It is not an easy matter to point to any 
definite time or occasion which the Bishop 
was able regularly to secure for his books in 
the midst of his busy life at Auckland 
Castle. In the earlier years of his life there 
his habit was to rise very early in the 
morning, and lighting his own fire (which 
had been laid ready for him over-night) to 
make sure of two or three hours’ quiet work 
in his bedroom before breakfast. But after 
a few years when the terrible strain that 
pressed upon him began to tell upon his 
health, he reluctantly abandoned this plan 
as anything like a general rule. 

When his constant engagements took him 
from home, he would sacrifice any personal 
convenience to return before night, or at 
least very early the following morning, in 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 63 


order to save as much time as possible. But 
even so the days at Auckland were seriously 
brokeninto. After breakfast he went through 
his letters with his chaplains, reserving a 
certain number to answer with his own hand, 
amongst which were the numerous com- 
munications he constantly received from 
scholars in all parts of Europe. The pre- 
paration of sermons, speeches, charges, etc., 
necessarily occupied a great deal of attention. 
And though the position of Bishop Auckland 
saved him from a large number of the 
inconsiderate callers who, had he lived at 
Durham, would have occupied his time 
about matters that could have been dealt 
with as well by post, still there were not a 
few to whom an interview was really im- 
portant, and who accordingly found their 
way to Auckland Castle. But with all these 
interruptions the last hour or two of the 
morning not unfrequently found the Bishop 
engaged with his literary work, and he was 
often able to keep the greater part of the 
evening for it. Unfortunately too he would 
day after day restrict his exercise to a short 
stroll in his park, and then return to his 
work for the rest of the afternoon. For a 
man who had been used to a considerable 
amount of walking, this loss of fresh air and 
exercise was a serious strain upon his 
health. 

The habit which the Bishop had formed of 
turning to his books at every available 
opportunity, however short, was exemplified 
even in the smallest details. Thus on his 
constant railway journeys, or in his long 
drives to the outlying villages of his diocese, 
he always had with him as his constant 
companion ‘a bag (familiarly known as ‘the 
Pandect’), in which were ready to his hand 
books, literary periodicals, proof-sheets, etc., 
for reference at any spare moment. 

There was however one great opportunity 
for uninterrupted work open to the Bishop, 
which he was not slow to seize. When 
August came round, and he was able to get 
away for a summer holiday, he would carry 
off his books to some retired spot—gener- 
ally in Scotland, and by preference to 
Braemar, where the bracing air and the quiet 
enabled him to work freely—and there he 
would abandon himself once more to a 
student’s life. His diocesan correspondence 
followed him even there, but it did not reach 
him until mid-day, and the mornings and 
most of the evenings were kept sacred for 
literary work. It was during these holidays 
that a great part of his introduction to the 
Ignatian Epistles was written. 


In the great bulk of his literary work 
Bishop Lightfoot depended entirely on his 
own labours. He never employed an aman- 
uensis ; he rarely allowed any one else even 
to verify his references. The only relief 
which he would accept was the almost 
mechanical correction of the proof-sheets of 
the new editions, as they were called for, 
of his ‘ Epistles of 5. Paul.’ But latterly 
he entrusted more and more of his editing 
work to his chaplain, the Rev. J. R. Harmer, 
who had prepared the indices for the edition 
of 8. Ignatius. In passing the sheets of 
his books through the press the Bishop 
spared no pains to ensure completeness in 
every detail ; thus, for instance, one sheet of 
Ignatius was kept back for months to enable 
him to add if possible an English rendering 
which would preserve the play upon words 
in κακοδαίμων in the Antiochene Acts of 
Martyrdom of 8. Ignatius (δ 11). 

One great secret of the Bishop’s being able 
to produce such a monument of learning and 
research as his Ignatius in the midst of an 
exceptionally active episcopate was the 
unique store of knowledge which he 
brought with him from Cambridge, and the 
remarkable accuracy of memory which en- 
abled him to apply it readily. Page after 
page was written currente calamo with 
few or no books of reference at hand, and 
with only a ‘ver.’ here and there in the 
margin where future verification was re- 
quired. He also had ina marked degree the 
power of again taking up the thread of his 
work after an interruption without a mo- 
ment’s hesitation. The thought of his 
complete and minute command of the whole 
range of the first three centuries excites a 
keen regret that the pressure of other busi- 
ness in the first instance, and afterwards the 
state of his health, should have prevented 
him from carrying out his original project, 
of writing a full historical introduction to 
his articles on ‘Supernatural Religion’ before 
re-issuing them in book form. 

It would however be an inaccuracy to 
imply that all the Bishop’s interest and re- 
searches were confined solely to the period 
of the Karly Fathers. Apart from the 
various topics of general and current interest 
which engaged his attention, he was a tho- 
rough enthusiast and expert on the subject of 
English Church history and antiquities, 
especially with regard to the unique heritage 
of his own diocese. He was among the first 
to claim for the Northumbrian mission of 
the seventh century its true position in the 
evangelization of England; and he was 


θ4 : THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


familiar with every detail of the ecclesiastical 
antiquities of Durham and Northumberland. 

Auckland Castle came into his hands with 
few or no relics of the see: he left it a 
monument of the history of all his great 
predecessors from the days of Aidan him- 
self. Stained glass windows, shields, epis- 
copal seals, portraits, books, personal relics— 
such as the one faulty inscription of Butler, 
or the desk of Cosin—all tell the story of 
the past. In the summer of 1886 he began 
to prepare a monograph on the history of 
Auckland Castle, at which he continued to 
work to the end as occasion offered. His 
sermons on the north country saints, 
preached at various churches dedicated in 
their names, will form a series which in 
point of Early English Church history will 
carry far more than a merely temporary or 
local interest. The Bishop himself intended 
to publish these in a collected form when he 
had completed the whole cycle, according to 
the plan he had laid down for himself. 

When Dr. Lightfoot was appointed to 
Durham in 1879 there was some hope that 
he might be able to continue at intervals to 
give at the northern University some of the 
lectures on the Greek Testament which had 
made him so famous as a teacher at Cam- 
bridge. His official position as Visitor of 
the University and Patron of the Canonries, 
with which two of its Professorships are 
endowed, seemed to give a certain ground 
for asking this of him. On more than one 
occasion during the first two years of his 
residence in the north he was urged to 
undertake such a course of lectures. But 
nothing would induce him to accede to this 
request. He felt that his hands were more 
than full of work in other directions, while 
the teaching staff of the University was 
amply sufficient for its needs. His interest 
however in the University never flagged, 
and it found a practical expression in the 
foundation by him in 1882 of the De Bury 
Scholarship for students who intend to take 
Holy Orders in the diocese of Durham. 

In his own home at Auckland Castle he 
gathered round him a band of graduates of 
the older Universities, who were reading 
with a view to taking Holy Orders in his 
diocese. The teaching of these students was 
entrusted chiefly to the resident chaplains, of 
whom there were always two on account of 
this special work. The Bishop himself occa- 
sionally gave them a course of Greek Testa- 
ment lectures, and the general direction of 
their studies rested with him: but more 
than this he was unable to do. Altogether, 


in the ten years eighty of these students 
have been trained at Auckland. 

The one impression left upon the minds of 
all who knew Bishop Lightfoot, on a review 
of his ten years’ episcopate, must always be 
that of a Father of the Church, who set him- 
self to rule over his diocese with conspicuous 
devotion, judgment, and ability; whose 
power of work seemed to be without limit, 
whose liberality was without stint; the 
motto of whose life was to spend and be 
spent for those to whom, as he himself ex- 
pressed it on the day of his enthronement at 
Durham, he had given himself wholly for 
better or worse. And when to all his other 
labours was added the strain of the Lambeth 
Conference of 1888, in which he bore no 
small part, it was the last burden which 
hopelessly broke down his already overtaxed 
strength. In the midst of a life of such 
ceaseless and varied activity, it was only by 
the stern exercise of his inflexible will, and 
a steadfast and self-denying earnestness of 
purpose, that he was able in any degree to 
continue his literary labours. 


H. E. SAvaGeE. 


‘He was strong by that sobriety of judg- 
ment which commands the old, and that fire 
of enthusiasm which wins the young. His 
interest centred in the fulness of human 
life. Speculation had comparatively little 
attraction for him. Even this limitation of 
his intellectual character increased his influ- 
ence and effectiveness in dealing with con- 
crete facts, He shrank from indistinctness 
and indecision. Nothing visionary, nothing 
that men call mystical, marred the effect of 
his masculine reasoning ... In argument 
and in exposition he preserved a true sense 
of proportion. His learning was always an 
instrument and not an end. No investigation 
of detail ever diverted his attention from 
the main issue. He mastered two outlying 
languages, Armenian and Coptic, in order to 
deal more surely with the secondary mate- 
rials of the Ignatian controversy, but no 
ordinary reader would know the fact. For 
him the interpretation of ancient texts was 
a study in life. He held books to be a witness 
of something far greater, through which 
alone they could be understood. A Greek 
play or a fragmentary inscription, or a letter 
of Basil or a homily of Chrysostom, was to 
him a revelation of men stirred by like 
passions with ourselves, intelligible only 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 65 


through a vital apprehension of the circum- 
stances under which they were written. He 
was a born historian. ‘“ How I long,” he 
said to me more than once, ‘‘ to write a his- 
tory of the fourth century.” If he has not 
written it, he has shown how it must be 
written.’ 

[Sermon preached at Westminster Abbey by 
Canon Westcott on the Sunday following the 
Bishop's death. 


The interesting words just quoted will 
only deepen the feeling of regret with which, 
if we are not mistaken, scholars in general 
regarded the self-sacrificing obedience of 
Prof. Lightfoot to the call which removed 
him from a centre of thought and learning to 
the distractions of a busy and populous dio- 
cese. Granted that his influence as Bishop 
was of the highest value to the Church 
at large and to his own diocese in particu- 


lar, we have to set against this the heavy 
loss to Cambridge, which under the fostering 
care of himself and his brother professors 
had become perhaps the most important 
seed-plot of the Church in England ; and, 
besides this, there is the thought of the 
added years of fruitful literary work which 
might have been hoped for if he had con- 
tinued to reside in his University. Was it 
really necessary that our Beda should be 
forced to take up the work of a Ceadda as 
well? However the past cannot be undone. 
It is some consolation that, as we are told, 
there is a prospect of a rich aftermath, in- 
cluding a much-enlarged edition of Clement, 
several volumes of sermons and addresses, an 
unfinished volume on the Northumbrian 
Saints, notes on the remaining Epistles of 
St. Paul, and possibly some notes on 
Aeschylus.—Ep. 


ARCHAEOLOGY. 


ROMAN INSCRIPTIONS FROM 
SARDINIA.—II. 


Signor Tamponi, the energetic Sardinian 
archaeologist who recently communicated to 
the Classical Review (111. 228-233) an im- 
portant find of milestones, has conferred a 
fresh favour by sending the inscriptions 
printed below, all of which, as I understand, 
are unpublished. At the editor’s request I 
have added, as before, a few notes. 
BK. HAvERFIELD. 


ITI.—MILEsTONES. 


The following belong to the same series as 
those published in the Wotizie (1888 p. 535) 
and in this Review (p. 228), being found near 
Olbia (Terranova), nos. 1-4 at Sbrangatu, no. 
5 at Telti, on the Roman road to Carales 
(Cagliart). All are fragmentary, and are 
interesting mainly as being unpublished. The 
supplements in italics are inserted (conjec- 
turally) for the reader’s convenience only. 
The details given in italics are quoted from 
Sig. Tamponi. 


1. Height 32 in., circumference 42 in. 


MP) CLX., {II 
MIVS 
PIVS * FELIX Aug 
PONT * MAXIMYS 


NO -pexexex, VOL. IVs 


5 TRIB * POTESTATE 
viam quae DVCET A KARAL * OLBIE 
VETVSTATE CORRVPTA72 
restituit CVRANTE Μ᾿ PI 
vs 
10 Wee 


The emperor’s name, if the text be right, 
must be Septimius (Severus or Geta). The 
procurator’s name cannot be restored: no 
known governor’s name begins 77. Pz. . ., 
nor, indeed, are nomina beginning in δὲ at 
all common. 


2. Height 37 in., width 15 in., thickness 
8 in. 
M P CLXVIIII 
DN IMP CAES 
FLABIO 
CAES 
FEL * INVIcto 
ΓΙ} 
1... iid i KARALIBVS 
OLBIAE * BETVState corruptam 
RESTITV2t 


Obviously one of the Constantines. 


3. Height 52 in., width 16 in., thickness 
12 an. 
F 


66 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


| Pel Siig, i 
QVAE DVCIT 
KARALIBVS * OLB 
BETVSTATE * COR 
REST 


ΡΣ fefoky 


4, Height 44 in., circumference 16 in. 


5. Height 78 in., circumference 56 in. 


M P CLXV 
DN IMP CAES DOM 
ANVS 
E EPIRA ΜΝ 
5 KARALIB * OLBI 
CORRVPTA Restitutt 
PRNETIVS VP 
PRESES Provinciae 
Sardinte 


7. Vir) P(erfectissimus) 

In line 2 the supplement Dom[iti]anus is 
impossible, because (1) the title d(ominus) 
n(oster) appears first in 194 a.p. (2) Lmp. 
Caesar is unusual till 100 a.p. (3) vir per- 
Jectissimus is unknown till 200 a.p. (Hirsch- 
feld, Verwaltungsgesch. 274 n. 1). (4) Under 
Domitian Sardinia was governed by a sena- 
torial magistrate. No doubt Z]|Domlitius 
Aurelijanus is meant. The procurator of 
Sardinia was sometimes called praeses even 
before Diocletian. 


TV.—InstRvYMENTVM DoMESTICVM. 


Since the editors of the Corpus led the way, 
archaeologists have begun to pay great atten- 
tion to the smaller inscribed objects, such as 
bricks, lamps, pottery, which earlier scholars 
except perhaps in England had grievously 
neglected. There is, indeed, a good deal to 
be learnt from these minutiae. We do not 
usually think of the emperors as wholesale 
manutacturers. But the Julio-Claudian 
family owned in the officina Pansiana a brick 
and earthenware factory which’ supplied 
all Italy and even Dalmatia, while Marcus 
Aurelius and his mother Lucilla before him 
derived a princely revenue from their brick- 
yards. We do not, again, usually imagine 


that means of transport were sufficiently 
advanced in the first two centuries A.D. 
to enable capitalists to supply distant regions. 
But the lamps of almost the whole empire 
were probably made in Italy, while the red 
‘Samian’ ware which was universally used, 
e.g. in Roman Britain, was all but entirely 
imported from certain potteries in France. 


A Flat tiles. 

1. Circular stamp 3 in. in diameter, with 
a figure of Victory tol. Beneath in a 
semicircle. STATI . Μ΄. LYCIFERI 


Compare in, C.J.L. vol. 5, 
8048 388. Statius Marcius Lucifer fec(it) 
89. MM. Stati Luciferi 


On mortaria (pe/ves) from Pompeii and 
Herculaneum. The same factory no doubt 
made all the rougher kinds of ‘ baked earth’ 
ware (opus doliare). 


Compare also, in C.L.L. 5, 


8048 34 35 St. 17. Celer (mortaria, Pom- 
peli, etc.) 
8048 Τ᾽ = Stat. Marcius, Demetrius fee. 


(tiles, Antium, Velitrae) 


8056 294 Stat. Ma. ..., Demetr. . 
(pottery, Puteoli) 

8048 4° Statius Marcius, Primigen|i|us 
fec. (mortarium, Stabiae) 


ibn (so mi, =) 
Sec. in figlin|is| 

8042 (so 8043 65) 
(tiles, Antium &c.) 

8048 45. St. Marcius, Tognaeu|s| f (mort- 
aria, Pompeii) 

More might be quoted, but these 
are enough to show that we have a firm 
using two nomina, Statius and Marcius, and 
a varying cognomen. Descemet (Jnscriptions 
Doliares un. 223-5) includes the work of 
some Statii Marcii among the products of 
the ‘ Domitia Lucilla’ works (circ. 123 a.p.), 
but only because the formula Valeat qui fecit 
appears on both sets of stamps. 


2. M * LOLLI 
TIRACAES 
This seems to complete C./.Z. 5, 8046 29 
and Ὁ, 


Stat. Marcius Secun|dus | 
(mortaria, Pompeii) 
St. Mare, Stator f 


3. ZIMPONI 

Probably imperfect. 
4, HEREN 

Tiles with this name are not uncommon. 
ὃ: EKO) ἨΔ agit 

6. anst C.I.L. 5, 8042 19, 

7. SILV ° CIS 
8. 


Round a semicircle. 
© ‘ LICINI DONA. ... 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 67 


B. Lamps, with reliefs representing flowers. 
9. BIC AGAT 
6.1.1. 8053 45. (Cagliari). 
10. L * CAESSAE 
Read caz[c]. 
11. AVFIFRON 
Both these are common lamps (Wilmanns 
2832), and have been found even in Britain 
where inscribed lamps are relatively uncom- 
mon; the Guildhall museum contains an 
unpublished ex. of each (of the latter the 
variety AVFFRON), and Mr. Clayton has one 
of the latter at Chesters. 


C. Glass. 
12. On the bottom of a glass vase, with a 
female figure. 
RIMON 
Probably incomplete. Cp. 6.1.1. 12 5696,!9 
Patrimonium and Patrimgni (sic), and a 
fragment found and preserved at York 


(museum catal. p. 90) PpaTRIM.... (wrongly 
read and published by Mr. Th. Watkin.) 


D. 13 A gold ring with a precious stone, show- 
ing the seal :— 
PV 
VI‘ FE 
pv are the initials of donor or recipient. 
VT. FE=utere felix, as common a formula as 
the Christian vivas in deo. 


E. Pottery (smaller) :— 

14, RASINISPIS 

Ο.1.1. 5. 8056 300 % 203, Pasint Pisani 
(potter’s name). 

15. ... Lis 16 .. ANVS 

17 Among the ornament apparently out- 
side 

4Va (LERIO) 

17—22 cylindrical vases 

Jlowers : on the foot ;— 


decorated with 


ΤΠ OE Sg. Ex ΜΡ 

Sy Ne One 205° ‘sic 

21. MM 5. 22. ACVIVS 

24, On the handle of a vase :— 
OPID 


Sig. Tamponi sent drawings of Nos. 1, 8, 
17, which I have tried to represent by 
description. 

Ἐς HAVERFIELD. 


Tier- und Phanzenbilder auf Miinzen und Gemmen 
des klassischen Alterthums. By F. ImuHoor- 
BiuMER and Orro KELLER. Leipzig, 1889. 4to. 
24 Mk. 


THIs most useful and long-needed work consists of 
twenty-six large photographie plates of coins and 
gems representing animals and plants, and of 161 
pages of descriptive text, with full indexes, 


The value of numismatic and glyptic illustrations 
of the natural history of the ancients is well-known, 
but hitherto the inquirer has had to select his coins 
and gems from miscellaneous works and periodicals. 
The numismatic portion of the present book has been 
prepared by Dr. Imhoof-Blumer with his usual sound 
judgment and wide knowledge. The coins selected 
are principally Greek of the autonomous period. The 
text gives a full description of every coin illustrated, 
with a mention of the cabinet where the specimen 
exists. It is perhaps a little to be regretted that the 
approximate date of the coins is not stated, especially 
for the benefit of those who are not numismatists. A 
reference to Mr. Head’s Historia Nwmorum will, 
however, in most cases enable the student to gather 
this information for himself. Dr. Otto Keller (the 
author of the Tiere des Klassischen Alterthwms) has 
most carefully brought together a very large selection 
of ancient gems engraved with subjects from natural 
history, and has written the accompanying text. 
With regard to the general arrangement, the coins 
and gems form separate sections, and in each an 
alphabetical order of subjects is adopted. The 
mammalia stand first, and then follow the birds, 
reptiles, fish, insects, plants, &c., nor are even the 
‘ Fabelhafte Tiere’ and ‘ Mischwesen’ forgotten. 

WARWICK WROTH. 


Manual of Ancient Sculpture. By PIERRE PARIS. 
Edited and augmented by JANE E. HARRISON. 
London, H. Grevel and Co., 1890. 8vo. pp. xvi., 
369 ; 187 illustrations. 10s. 6d. 


This is a volume of the ‘Bibliotheque de l’En- 
seignement des Beaux-arts,’ and in the English 
version it belongs to the ‘Student’s Fine Art 
Library.’ The aim of the book is to supply not a 
history of sculpture, but a running commentary on 
the artistic and aesthetic qualities of selected 
specimens. Exception may well be taken to the 
whole scheme of the book. Facts and dates 
are for the most part shadowy, but the student 
is given an elaborate series of aesthetic principles. 
It seems a more profitable plan, to supply the 
framework of fact, and to suggest the principles 
involved in the tersest language possible, leaving 
the reader to develop the details, as far as his 
powers will allow. 

If however the author’s point of view is accepted, 
the work is fairly well performed. The commentary 
is as readable as can be expected; it adopts, as 
a rule, the accepted, not to say the conventional 
views ; and there is an abundance of illustrations. 

The hand of the English editor is visible through- 
out the Greek and Roman sections. Short. biblio- 
graphies (which would be better, if they were 
more accurately printed) are prefixed to each 
section ; distinct errors have in several places been 
corrected ; more specimens have been quoted. 
Allusions have been introduced to recently pro- 
pounded theories, about which M. Paris is silent, 
either by design, or because he has not followed 
the latest archaeological literature. More than 
once, also, there are hints that the editor has a 
more personal knowledge of Greece than the author. 
It should be added that in some instances the 
artistic judgments have been almost re-written, 
although the editor’s preface suggests a contrary 
impression. Compare the criticisms of the Caryatids 
of the Erechtheion (p. 235) and of the sculptured 
drum from Ephesus (p. 267). The illustrations 
have been increased in number, and occasionally 
improved in quality. 

10 is to be regretted that the translation, which 
is in many ways an improvement on the original, 

F 2 


68 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


is disfigured with a great number of misprints. 
Some are obvious, and others are more obscure as 
Caovoclias for Cavvadias on p. xvi. I conjecture 
that ‘chit’ on p. 159 should be ‘club’; that on 
p. 184 ‘Berlin Museum’ should be ‘ British 
Museum’; that on p. 261 the ‘Doryphoros in 
the British Museum’ should be the ‘ Diadumenos 
of Mr. Blacker.’ On p. 858 Kanachos should be 
read for Kalamis. Pasiteles appears on p. 184 as 
Praxiteles, and on page 366 as Pastiles. On p. 317 
the English version assigns to Lessing a theory 
that Titus was the sculptor of the Laocoon, which, 
as is justly observed, ‘is of course impossible.’ 
A. Η. SMITH. 


The Horsemen of Tarentum. By Arruur J. 
Evans, M.A., F.S.A. London, (Quaritch), 1889, 
8vo. 12s. 6d. 


This most able and thorough monograph on the 
coins of Tarentum with the horsemen types was 
originally printed by Mr. Evans in the Numismatic 
Chronicle, and is now, with the addition of indices 
and a table of contents, very welcome in the more 
accessible form of a separate publication. It is very 
fully illustrated by eleven autotype plates and by 
some woodeuts. The coins are distributed into ten 
periods (B.c. 450-209), the description of the money 
of each period being preceded by an introduction. 
A general introduction occupies pages 1-29. The 
chronology of the different issues is worked out with 
minute care, and the arrangement proposed certainly 
seems convincing. Some important evidence is 
derived from various hoards of Tarentine coins 
examined by Mr. Evans himself. In several of the 
varieties of the horsemen and Taras types, Mr. 
Evans ingeniously finds allusions to the actual 
history of Tarentum, and it can hardly be doubted 
that such allusions exist. There is an excellent 
section on engravers’ names. Mr. Evans points 
out that the Tarentine engravers, some of whom 
certainly worked for other cities of Magna Graecia, 
signed the coins not only in their artistic capacity 
but as officials responsible for the weight and metals. 
The monograph is one which all numismatists will 
study with the greatest interest, and it will well 
repay the attention of classical archaeologists, in 
spite of the minute treatment necessarily entailed 
by so complex a series of coins. Mr. Evans should 
not fail to give us similar essays on the coinages of 
other cities of Magna Graecia, 

Warwick Wroru. 


A Guide to the Principal Gold and Silver Coins of 
the Ancients (B.c. 700-a.D. 1). By Barcuay V. 
HEAD, D.C.L., Ph.D. London, 1889, 8vo., with 
7 plates. Third edition. 2s. 6d. 


This is a new edition of the admirable guide 
written by Mr. Head to accompany the large series 
of electrotypes of Greek and Roman coins selected 
by him for exhibition in the British Museum and 
other public institutions. The work is now so well 
known that it will be enough to call attention to 
the fact that the author has in the present edition 
(the third) made many material improvements in 
accordance with his Historia Numorwm and other 
numismatic publications that have appeared since 
1881, the date of the second edition of the Guide, 
The grouping of the coins in periods remains, 
however, almost unaltered and the arrangement of 
the plates has, very wisely, not been disturbed. The 
half-crown edition now before us is accompanied by 
Seven autotype plates giving a selection of some 
of the most interesting coins of each period. The 
edition of the Guide costing twenty-five shillings 


and illustrated by seventy plates is not yet out of 
print, but will, when re-issued, be accompanied by 
the same revised text as the new half-crown edition. 


δ ἘΝ: 


ATHENAIOS, xi. 49.—In describing the type of 
drinking-cup termed καρχήσιον, Athenaios quotes the 
following description of it from Callixenos of Rhodes : 
ποτήριόν ἐστιν ἐπίμηκες, συνηγμένον εἰς μέσον ἐπιεικῶς, 
ὦτα ἔχον μέχρι τοῦ πυθμένος καθήκοντας. He then 
observes that the mast-head of a ship was also termed 
καρχήσιον, and that Asclepiades of Myrleia said that 
the drinking-cup was copied from the mast-head. <Ac- 
cordingly he quotes from Asclepiades a description of 
a mast containing the following description of the 
mast-head : ἔχει δὲ τοῦτο κεραίας ἄνω συννευούσας ἐφ᾽ 
ἑκάτερα τὰ μέρη, καὶ ἐπίκειται τὸ λεγόμενον αὐτῷ θωρά- 
κιον, τετράγωνον πάντῃ πλὴν τῆς βάσεως καὶ τῆς 
κορυφῆς" αὗται δὲ προὔχουσι μικρὸν ἐπ᾽ εὐθείας ἐξωτέρω. 
This is repeated by Eustathios, p. 1423, but more 
briefly : καρχήσιον, ᾧ ἐπίκειται τὸ λεγόμενον θωράκιον. 
The whole passage is translated by Macrobius, Satwr- 
nalia, v. 21,5: but his translation is useless; for 
he has mistaken ἱστοῦ for ἱστίου, and thus gone 
hopelessly astray. 

The top and bottom of the θωράκιον, which were 
not τετράγωνος, bulged slightly outward : therefore 
the intervening portion, which was τετράγωνος, did 
not bulge; in other words, it had straight sides. 
This seems to be the whole meaning of τετράγωνος in 
the curious phrase κύλινδρος τετράγωνος πανταχεῖ, 
in Corp. Inscr. Attic. vol. ii. no. 835, 1. 70: for the 
object would hardly be termed κύλινδρος if its trans- 
verse section were square. As the θωράκιον was the 
crow’s-nest, the transverse section would more pro- 
bably be round than square. Now the καρχήσιον 
(the drinking-cup) is described as elongated and con- 
tracting gently in the middle: and the transverse 
section of every drinking-cup was necessarily round. 
Thus the body of the καρχήσιον (the drinking-cup) so 
far corresponds in shape to the θωράκιον, that I 
would venture to read ἔγκειται for ἐπίκειται, so as to 
make the θωράκιον the central portion of the καρχή- 
σιον (the mast-head) : the horns curving up on each 
side of this (κεραίας ἄνω συννευούσας ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερα τὰ 
μέρη), consequently corresponding to the handles 
reaching down to the bottom (ὦτα μέχρι τοῦ πυθμένος 
καθήκοντα) of the drinking-cup. As these κεραῖαι are 
described as συννεύουσαι, they clearly cannot be 
κεραῖαι in the usual nautical sense; for then they 
would be straight. A pair of rings for the halliards 
is sometimes plainly represented at the mast-head, as 
in the Corinthian painting in Antike Denkmdler, vol. 
i. pl. 8, fg. 3; and these resemble the handles of a 
drinking-cup. But such rings would not necessarily 
be perfect ; for the lower part would alone suffice to 
hold the halliards, so that the upper part might 
remain open: and then they would resemble a pair 
of horns. The corruption of ἔγκειται into ἐπίκειται 15 
highly probable: for Asclepiades describes the mast 
from the bottom upwards to the top ; so that a copy- 
ist might easily conclude that, as the θωράκιον is 
mentioned after the καρχήσιον, the one was really 
above the other. Ceci ToRR. 


PAUSANIAS v. 11, 1.—Pausanias in his descrip- 
tion of the Zeus Olympios of Pheidias (v. 11, 1) 
says that his himation was adorned with various 
animal forms and lilies: and in v. 22 he describes a 
statue of Zeus, probably of the pre-Pheidian period, by 
the Aeginetan Aristonoos, on the head of which was 
a crown of lilies. Whether lilies appear elsewhere as 
an attribute or symbol in the representations of Zeus 
I do not know. It is usual to say that Pheidias only 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 69 


used them as symbols of beauty in general. But a 
passage in Athenaeus (15, p. 684 D) suggests a 
more specially appropriate interpretation : ‘Nixav5pds 
φησιν ἐξ ἀνδριάντος τῆς κεφαλῆς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τὴν 
καλουμένην ἀμβροσίαν φύεσθαι ἐν Κῷ."...τὸ κρίνον οὕτω 
λέγουσι. It may be that the legend arose from the 
record of a crown of lilies carved on the head of Alex- 
ander’s statue : in any case it is clear that the mean- 
ing of the passage turns on the word ἀμβροσία, and 
the idea is that the lily expressed the immortality or 
apotheosis of Alexander. It may well then have the 
same meaning on the himation of the Olympian Zeus, 
and on the head of the Aeginetan work they may be 
an allusion to the ἀμβρόσιαι χαῖται. 
L. R. FARNELL. 


PINDAR, PyTH. xii. 16, εὐπαράου κρᾶτα συλάσαις 
Medoloas. εὐπάραος has been generally regarded as 
a literary epithet, quite against the method of 
Pindar. Is it not rather that the poet idealizes a 
process which he saw going on around him in art ὃ 
The type of Medusa on the coins of Coroneia was 
gradually refined, and as early as 450 B.c. presents 
a face which, but for the conventional lolling 
tongue, has nothing of the goblin left [v. Brit. Mus. 
Cat. Gr. C. Centr. Gr. pl. vii. 6 and note the 
continuance of the refinement in pl. vii. 8, 385 B.c. 
and vil. 9, 335 B.c.]. The twelfth Pythian was written 
for Midas of Agrigentum, and in Sicily also a milder 
type of Medusa’s ask was known [as at Kamarina, 
Syracuse, Motye, Egesta: v. B. M, Cat. Sicily, pp. 
39-40: 244-5: and Torremuzza Sic. Vet. Num. tab. 
68, 19 and 20: though some of these coins are ivth 
century]. On the other hand when Pindar, asin the 
xth Pythian, writes fora Spartan audience, Medusa is 
still encircled with a ‘horror of serpents.’ The epithet 
εὐπάραος taken literally represents the one title to 
beauty which the Medusa might be held to possess : 
the full cheek, when once, as in the Coroneian coins, 
the rictus of the monster disappears, is in truth 
‘comely.’ Pindar, with the privilege of a Greek 
poet, creates mythology by indicating the possibilities 
inherent in the spirit of a contemporary art, which 
again was indebted for its technical tradition to an 
old-time half-identification of Medusa with Hathor. 


Woop BEAMS IN STONE ARCHITECTURE. — In 
the last number of the Philologisches Wochen- 
blatt (2nd Nov.) Dorpfeld notes in reference to M. 
Tsountas’ latest report on Mycenae that the walls 
there mentioned are constructed with a balk of tim- 
ber in between the courses of squared stone. Natu- 
rally Dorpfeld recalls Solomon’s buildings [1 Kings 
vii. 2]. To this reference however I would add 
Pliny, V.H. xvi. 79, who states that the cedar-beams 
in the walls of the Apollo temple at Utica had lasted 
down to his own time. Similarly the Lycian archi- 
tecture shows unmistakable traces of having formerly 
employed beams of wood, where afterwards marble 
was used: but in Lycia the case is somewhat different, 
as building in stone seems to have been copied en bloc 
from building in wood. In Africa and Palestine the 
use of wood beams in alternation with stone is an in- 
troduction of the Phoenicians : in Greece and Lycia 
there may possibly be the influence of the same 
master-builders. Phoenicia was a great building 
nation, and its houses were famous [Jos. B.J. 1]. 
18-9: Ezek. xxvi. 12, where the construction with 
stone and timber alternating seems to be directly 
noticed : 1 K. vi. 36: Ez. xxvii. 3]. Certain pas- 
sages in the Talmud also allude to a distinctive 
Phoenician style of architecture, and there again the 
element of difference may be the employment of 
cedar-beams [Mishna Maaserath III. 5, an ‘ Atrium 


Tyrium’: Baba Bathra III. 6, a ‘scala Tyria,’ and 
‘fenestra Tyria’]. H. ARNOLD TubBs. 


WAS THE PATERA USED IN SACRIFICES BY THE 
Roman Rire ?—Baumeister in his Denkméler (fig. 
1304) gives without demur—perhaps he is right—the 
figure of a priest with veiled head (and therefore 
sacrificing ritu Romano), who holds a patera in his 
right hand ; and indeed familiar passages in Horace 
and elsewhere naturally dispose us to associate the 
patera with libations at Rome of any kind ; with this 
too Marquardt seems to agree on page 654 of his 
Privatleben, But for all that, questions suggest 
themselves—what parts did the simpulum (or simpu- 
vium) play, of which Festus says ‘quo vinum in 
sacrificiis libatur’? And still more, how can we ac- 
count for the fact that, whereas the patera was un- 
questionably often made of silver, there is no mention 
of it in Liv. xxvi. 36, along with the salinum and pa- 
tella among the silver articles retained for religious ser- 
vices in the year 210 B.c.? The easiest answer, if it 
could be made good, would be that the patera, as a 
Roman equivalent for φιάλη, came in later from the 
Greek cities of Italy, and with the Graecus ritus. 
It is true that the Etruscans had a vessel like a φιάλη 
with a handle, which we usually call a patera, but 
that differed from the ordinary patera (which was 
precisely like the φιάλη), and we have no evidence of 
its use at Rome. If we set down the patera as of 
comparatively late introduction, perhaps not before 
the latter part ot the 3rd century B.c., we may sup- 
pose the old Roman vessels for libation to have been 
the simpulum alone or the simpulum combined with 
the capis; and these, with the conservatism of relig- 
ion, would be retained whenever the ritus Romanus 
was used. 

We can thus understand why in the relief on the Ar- 
cus Argentariorum, for instance, among the sacrificial 
implements the simpulum and capis appear, but no 
patera (if we suppose it to be a representation of 
implements for the Roman rite): and why again the 
simpulum is the badge of the old Roman order of 
Augurs, while the patera marks the Epulones who 
date only from B.c. 196. That the simpulum was 
one of the primitive sacred vessels is clear from Varro’s 
statement (Z.L. v. 124) that it had in old times been 
used at the dinner table, but, being superseded there 
by the Greek cyathus, was retained for sacrifices, 
and from the passage in Juvenal (vi. 343), where it 
is coupled with the ‘niger catinus’ ( ?=praefericu- 
lum), which was probably for public sacrifices what 
the smaller patella was for domestic. The term sim- 
pulatrices applied to women would hence naturally 
convey the imputation, if it is to be so regarded, of 
old-fashioned piety. The omission of the simpulum 
from the list of silver plate in Liv. xxvi. 36 is ex- 
plained by Pliny’s remark (H.W. xxxv. § 158) that 
the primitive earthenware for the simpulum was re- 
tained, from a conservative sentiment, even in his 
time. The words of Festus and Pliny seem (though 
not beyond a doubt) to assert that the wine taken 
from the larger vessel or crater was poured directly 
from the simpulum, but in some cases the simpulum 
must have been used to fill the capis, from which 
the libation was then poured (cf. Liv. x. 7). The 
view that the patera did not belong to the Roman rite 
may be at any moment (and perhaps has been) over- 
thrown by monumental evidence. The figure from 
the Vatican, alluded to above, as shown in Bau- 
meister’s Denkmdler, would overthrow it, if the patera 
in the right hand of the veiled priest were authentic ; 
but, as both hands are admitted to be restorations, 
it is impossible in this instance to say what the sculptor 
meant them to hold. G. E. MARINDIN. 


70 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


MARBLE CALATHOS-STELE FROM Pout.—One inter- 
esting product of this year’s excavations at Poli was 
the worked stone found in grave K 29. There can 
be no doubt that it is a calathos, and, so faras I 
know, such a sepulchral monument is unique. The 
stone was apparently set up on a stele of some 
sort, for on its under side is a fusing-hole :—from 
tomb K 2 came the counterpart, an octagonal stele 
with a similar hole above. A reproduction of such a 
tombstone may be seen for example on a Campanian 
yase in the Berlin collection [No. 3317]!; and the 
practice of making a calathos the actual grave-monu- 
ment is the natural outeome of the custom of which 
Vitruvius speaks in the well-known story about the 
origin of the Corinthian—or calathos—capital in 
Greek architecture.* In itself the calathos as a 
basket is simply a useful piece of household furniture, 
but its connection with funeral rites lends it a certain 
specific character as the appropriate vehicle of offerings 
to the dead. In this sense it is frequently placed, by 
S. Italian vase-painters, inside the aedicula itself. 
The border-line between this use of the calathos and 
that in which it is merely an article of furniture is 
not very clearly marked, so that one hesitates to 
assign a symbolic meaning to its presence on 6.4. the 
Albani relief, or ar. f. hydria in Berlin, where the 
sevne is sepulchral.4 It is just possible that in the 
light of the stone found at Poli, and of vases like 
those in Tischbein (iv. 47 and v. 7), we should 
recognize a ‘sacrifice at the grave’ in a series of 
scenes where a calathos occupies the centre, as though 
it had been an altar, to which libations and other 
offerings seem to be made: this series is mainly con- 
fined to the small Athenian τ. f. lekythoi of humble 
workmanship which date fron the fourth century. It 
seems at least probable that the scenes on these vases 
were intended to have a funeral significance ; and 
where they are taken by themselves little more than 
genre, there is still a suggested connection between 
the life here and that beyond the grave. 

The contents of tomb K 29 at Poli cannot be dated 
with entire certainty, For the most part they belong 
to the middle of the fourth century ; but it is not 
precisely determinable whether the tomb has not been 
used twice, at which indeed the find-spot of the 
calathos rather hints. The stone was lying in the 


1 Cf. No. 3024 zbid. 

2 Vitr. De Arch. IV. i. 9. sqq. 

3 ¢.g. Berlin No. 3171, or Millin JI. 29. 

4 Antigq. No. 2379. Furtwingler gives a strange 
explanation as though the scene had some connection 
with the Paris story. The κάλαθος here indicates the 
γυναικωνῖτις, Whither Hermes has come as ψυχοπόμπος 
to carry off the wife and mother to the shades. That 
this is the meaning, the gestures of the dramatis 
personae plainly show. The mistress is interrupted, 
like the maid, in the midst of her household duties ; 
aud with something of terror, and something of re- 
monstrance she listens to the bidding of Hermes, 
whose downward-pointed staff marks the character of 
his message, as the opened argumentative left hand 
indicates the delivery of it. [For the gestures of 
both Hermes and the woman ef. those of the same 
characters on a polychrome lekythos in Stackelb. 
Graber. pl. xlvii.] The Hermes may be compared 
with the figure of the same god on a mirror (Etruscan) 
also in Berlin, where he is superintending the removal 
of a dead warrior, aided curiously enough by a youth- 
ful satyr. 

An interesting feature in the Berlin vase, a fifth 
century piece of work, is the evident intention to 


one emotion in the face of the unfortunate 
ady. 


very middle of the floor, and the pedestal to which 
it had been attached had disappeared. It is however 
evident from the discovery that at the latest in the 
fourth century B.c. there existed in Cyprus a very 
simple form of calathos-capital, scarcely to be derived 
from the Corinthian, but belonging rather to an older 
architectural system. There ave indeed species of 
Cy priote capitals which have, on very slender grounds, 
been claimed as ‘prototypes’ of the Corinthian ® ; 
but to speak of a ‘prototype’ in this connection is 
somewhat meaningless unless the word is used in a 
new sense. That however the Corinthian order had 
predecessors, and predecessors in a nearer degree than 
the Ionic—to say nothing of the Egyptian campani- 
form—is inevitable: though the gain of truth in 
Vitruvius’ story may be of the minutest. Simpler 
or variant forms of the calathos-capital were known 
in Greek architecture,é and such a one is this from 
Cyprus. But the Poli stone is something more than 
a variant : it is, in despite of chronology, a predecessor, 
a suggestion of the form invented by Callimachus ; 
and as such deserves some attention. The purpose 
it served stiil dominates it, the upper and lower 
horizontal bands confining the fronds which threaten 
otherwise to dissolve the basket-shape : so that what 
is in effect a free and graceful architectural member is 
lowered to the level of superstition and utility. Take 
away the fetter of religious custom, let the fronds of 
the calathos shake themselves free from the band 
which still keeps up the likeness to a basket, and the 
new theory of the capital stands complete. The 
superstructure is no longer supported on the column 
as on a prop, but it grows from it as the head of a 
date-palm grows from its stem. 
H. ARNOLD TUBBS. 


CHERSONESOS CNIDIA.—With reference to my 
article (C. 2. 1889, p. 422), I have further noticed in 
the ’ApxaioA. Δελτίον of June 1888, p. 112, a new 
fragment of a quota list, which shows that the 
Cnidian Chersonesoi there are a συντέλεια. There 
were however more than three cities, for the tribute of 
the three contained in the fragment cannot jointly 
amount to as much as a talent, whereas the tribute of 
the Χεῤῥονήσιοι is three talents. 

W. R. Parton. 


Numismatic Chronicle. Part III. 1889. 

Warwick Wroth. ‘Greek coins acquired by the 
British Museum in 1888’ (with one autotype plate). 
Describes in detail 52 of the most noteworthy of the 
455 Greek coins acquired by the Museum. Among 
the specimens, which include several coins not 
described in the European portion of the British 
Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins, are a bronze coin 
of Mopsium in Thessaly with a reverse-type (Mopsus 
and a Centaur) resembling a Parthenon metope (No. 
III.) in the British Museum ; an unpublished Lamp- 
sacene stater, of fine style, with obverse, head of Zeus ; 
a silver coin of Caunus, already described by Mr. T. 
Bent in Journal Hell. Stud. 1889, p. 85; a bronze 
coin, witha Greek inscription, of Parlais in Lycaonia, 
a town of which only Roman Colonial coins had 
previously been known ; well-preserved silver coins 
of Mallus in Cilicia; Jewish half-shekels of \ears 3 
and 4.—Sir A. Cunningham. ‘Coins of the Tochari, 


> As those in C. Ceccaldi Mons Ante du Chypre 
pp. 43 and 44. 

6 As in later work, like the Caryatid columns by 
Kriton and Nikolaos, or the Herodian pillar of the 
mosque E] Aksa at Jerusalem (the latter is figured 
in Renan, Mission, pl. xli.). 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 71 


Kushans, or Yue-ti.’ Deals chiefly with the history 
and coinage of the Scythian conquerors of Bac- 
triana. W. W. 


ACQUISITIONS OF BRITISH MUSEUM. 


1. The Trustees of the Museum have arranged for 
the purchase of the magnificent silver treasure of 
Chaource, which was offered for sale in Paris in June 
1888 and is fully described and illustrated in the sale 
catalogue issued on that occasion ; these descriptions 
are partly based on a study by the Abbé Thédenat 
and M. Héron de Villefosse in the Gazette Archéo- 
logique of 1885, pp. 111, 256 and 317. 

The treasure was discovered in 1883 by some 
peasants working in a field near Montcornet (Aisne) : 
the first piece was turned up by the plough, and this 
led to the finding of the remainder, the entire set 
having been originally wrapped in a piece of cloth 
which had almost wholly perished. Six Roman bronze 
coins were afterwards found on the spot, dating from 
the reigns of Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Anton- 
inus and Postumus: from this and other internal 
evidence it is clear that the objects date from the 
second century A.D. 

They consist of thirty vases of silver, and six of 
bronze plated with silver, comprising an almost com- 
plete table service, méinisterium: there is also a 
silver statuette of Fortuna (Zrésor, pl. II. No. 31), 
with a base which may have belonged to it, a 
statuette of a squatting Arab slave (7vrésor, pl. II. 
No. 32) whose hair is pierced with six holes,— 
possibly a pepper pot, piperatorium (?)—, and the 
fragments of a flute (?). One of the silver pilates is 
decorated on the interior with a medallion on which, 
in relief, is Hermes between a cock and a ram (77ésor, 
pl. 1X. No. 29). Perhaps the most attractive piece is 
a large silver situla with movable handle (7'resor, pl. 
X. No. 30), which has a broad frieze of floral orna- 


ment in relief around the mouth. The reliefs in 
both these pieces are parcel gilt. 

The workmanship, which is of great beauty, is 
probably of Roman origin, as is shown by the occur- 
rence of such names as Genialis, Aurelianus, Kavari- 
anus, incised on some of the objects. 

2. A sard scaraboid mounted on a silver hoop and 
engraved with the figure of Athene holding out the 
akrostolion of a ship, found in Cyprus. Mr. Murray, 
who has kindly promised to write a description of 
this gem for the next number of the Review, thinks 
that it may have been intended to commemorate a 
naval victory in which Athene had assisted the 
Cypriotes as she frequently did in the early part of 
the fourth century B.c. : and he compares the Cypri- 
ote silver coin (Kekulé, Balustrade d. Ath. Nike, 
vignette. Six in Num. Chron. 1883 p. 334, no. 42) 
on which Athene is seen seated on the prow of a ship 
and holding out an akrostolion. 

3. a. Bronze relief which has decorated the lower 
part of the handle of a large hydria, together with 
portions of the hydria to which it has belonged. 
The vase when complete must have been very similar 
to one which is now in the British Museum, and 
which was obtained from the island of Chalke near 
Rhodes ; the reliefs in both cases represent Dionysos 
and Ariadne, but the one now acquired is immeasur- 
ably the finer of the two; it is probably one of the 
finest specimens of this class of vase decoration that 
has come down to us, and may be assigned to a date 
towards the middle of the third century B.c. 

ὃ. A small silver cup, found with the bronze vase. 

4. A series of objects from Cyprus, viz. 

a. A steatite gem in the form of a negro’s head 
engraved on the base with the figure of an eagle: 
mounted in gold. 

b. A steatite scarab: on the base is engraved a 
Cretan goat. 

c. An ivory tessera for the theatre, inscribed 
XIII. 


1" CEcIL SMITH. 


SUMMARIES 


The Athenaeum, 1889. 


Oct. 26. Review of Leaf’s Zliad, Vol. 11. ; Notices 
of Monro’s Iliad, Vol. 11. ; and of An Intermediate 
Greek Lexicon. —Noy. 2. Obituary of Cobet.— 
Nov. 9. Letter from J. P. Mahaffy on Cobet.— 
Dec. 28. Obituary of Bishop Lightfoot. 


The Academy, 1889. 


Oct. 29. Notices of Marchant’s Andocides, Zimmer- 
mann’s De Tacito Senecae Phil. Imitatore, and of 
Reitzenstein’s Proclus’ Commentary on Plat. Rep.; 
Review by A. H. Sayce of Brugmann’s Comparative 
Grammar, 11. 1.—Nov. 2 Review by H. Richards 
of Haigh’s Attic Theatre.—Nov. 9. Notices of Post- 
gate’s Sermo Latinus, C. H. Russell’s Heceuba, 
Dimsdale’s Liv. 22, Flagg’s Iphigenia in T., Hogue’s 
Irregular Greek Verbs.—Nov. 16. Obituary by J. S. 
Cotton cf Dr. Hatch.— Nov. 23. Review by H. 
Bradley of Sonnenschein’s Parallel Grammar Series. 
—Noy. 30. Letter from E. A. Sonnenschein on above 
review.—Dec. 7. Review by F. Haverfield of Nettle- 
ship’s Contributions to Latin Lexicography ; letter by 
H. Bradley on above.—Dec. 28. Notice of Schrader’s 
Sprachvergleichung. 


OF 


PERIODICALS. 


Neue Jahrbucher fur Philologie ἃ. Padago- 
gik. Ed. Fleckeisen u. Masius. (Leipzig, 1889.) 

Hefte 2 and 3 contain: (1) A. Reichardt De Q. 
Enni Annalibus, the first part of a paper dealing with 
the language of Ennius under the headings (A) words 
not used in later Latin, (B) words used by Ennius in 
a peculiar sense, (0) peculiarities of grammatical 
form. (2) E. Bussler Z%motheos von Gaza wu. Op- 
pianos Kynegetikos, showing that the former writer 
did not, as Haupt supposed, borrow from Oppian. 
(3) A. Ludwich Zw den Iliasscholien, notes of some 
MSS. in Spain collated in 1877 by A. Torstrik. (4) 
Th. Biittner-Wobst Polybius ed. F. Hultsch, a notice 
of the second edition of Vol. I. with especial reference 
to Hultsch’s later views on the origin of the MSS. 
(5) F. Giesing Rottenabstdnde ει. Groésze der Intervalle 
in the phalanx and the manipular legion, a very 
interesting paper suggested by Polybius XVIII. 29 sqq. 
The effect of it is as follows. To the phalangite at 
all times and to the legionary, when not in action, 
3 ft. of space was allowed, of which the man himself 
occupied 14 ft. But the legion, as it went into action, 
‘extended’ and allowed each man another 14 ft., so 
that he had 3 ft. clear for his sword-arm. The 
quincunz formation was not maintained in action, for 


12 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the ‘extension’ of the maniples filled up the inter- 
vals, which were left open, in the first instance, for 
the retirement of the light troops. The intervals 
were thus half as long as the front of the unextended 
maniple. Polybius, loc. cit., is right in saying that 
the intervals between Roman soldiers were twice as 
great as between phalangites, but is pardonably 
wrong in saying (or implying) that in battle one 
Roman legionary would face two phalangites. There 
were really two Romans to every three phalangites. 
(6) H. Kothe Zu Thuk. VIL. 75, 4, proposing λιγέων 
ἐπιθειασμῶν for ὀλίγων ἐπ. (7) A. Ε΄. Schone Zu 
Caesar B. C. 1. 3. 3, proposing turbulentius comitinum 
for urbs et ius com. (8) A. Ἐν Anspach, J. Lange and 
E. Redslob Zu Plautus, several notes mostly on 
Rudens and Mercator. (9) C. Angermann on 
Grasberger’s Griech. Ortsnamen, an unfavourable 
review. (10) J. Lange Zu Caesar B.G. V. 8—19 (the 
second campaign in Britain), proposing that the 
chapters should be placed in the order 8, 12, 13, 14, 
9, 10, 11, 18, 15, 16, 17, 19. (11) A. Deuerling Zu 
Cic. Pompeiana 18, proposing (partly after Hammer) 
posse publicanos amissa wect. nostra wiect. rec. (12) 
Th. Breiter Zu Manilius, emendations. (13) K. Koch 
Zu Cic. pro Arch., proposing in 5 absens nobis for ab- 
sentibus, and in 10 gregatim ciu. for grauat in cir. 
(14) L. Triemel Cn. Flavius τι. sein Concordiatempel, 
to the effect that the temple was dedicated A.v.c. 
431. (15) K. Schrader Der Pannonische Triumph des 
Tiberius, fixing the date of this triumph at Jan. 16th 
A.D. 12. (16) K. Schliack Zu Cic. Off. III. 1, strik- 
ing out interdum before colloquio. 

Heft 4 contains : (1) K. Brandt Zur Gesch. etc. der 
Ilias V11, a paper on the armour of Achilles in the 
old μῆνις epic. (2) F. Walter Zu Tacitus, proposing in 
hist. I. 71 hostes metu terreret for hostes metueret, in 
hist. 1V. 23 testudinem scutorwm for test. suorwm, in 
ann. ΧΙ. 35 Romani: ea cupido ete. and in ann. XV. 
58 late actwm for latatwm, taking late in the sense 
‘ausfiihrlich.’ (3) C. Rothe Zur Homerischen Frage, 
an answer to some observations of K. Brandt in N.J. 
1888 p. 513. (4) A. Ludwich Oileus u. Ileus, a collec- 
tion of passages showing chiefly that Aristarchus 
maintained the form Oileus. (5) F, Weck Jn Soph. 
Elektra, exegetical notes. (6) F. Blass Das Newe Wei- 
ner Fragment des Epicharmos, a restoration of the 10 
lines and criticism of Gomperz. (7) H. v. Kleist Zu 
Thukydides, a few notes. (8) R. Menge Das reciproke 
Verhiltniss bei Caesar, i.e. the relation expressed by 
inter se and similar phrases, enumerating the various 
cases of such relation and Latin modes of expressing 
it. (9) Th. Matthias Zu Ciceros Reden, emendations 
chiefly to De domo. (10) W. Friedrich Zu Ciceros 
Topica, a long criticism of the published texts 
founded on MSS. of the xth and xith centuries. not 
before collated. 


Revue de Philologie. Jan.—March, 1889. 


A. Hauvette, La Géographie d’ Hérodote. Are we to 
call Herodotus, with H. Berger, no geographer, or, 
with Bergk and Forbiger, the father of geography ? 
The fact is that he broke with the theories of his 
predecessors, the ‘logographi,’ such as Anaximan- 
der and Hecataeus. Almost all that we know of 
them comes from Herodotus. His difference from 
them consists mainly in his rejection of general 
hypotheses not based on certain experience. The 
apparent facts of astronomy, the rising and setting 
of the sun, &ec., are to his naive belief real. North 
winds blow the sun farther south and so cause win- 
ter, and soon. Still in astronomy he is not widely 
removed from Anaximander and Anaxagoras. But 
in geography he differs from Hecataeus in rejecting 
what was based on theoretical system as distinct 


from direct evidence. Berger holds that his criti- 
cisms only spring from a vague and unintelligent ac- 
quaintance with Pythagoras’ doctrine of the spherical 
shape of the earth and Parmenides’ of the five zones. 
But Berger's quotations from Aristophanes and Plato 
do not prove that these theories were widely spread 
in Greece at that time. Hdt.’s view that the north is 
uninhabitable, and that Phoenician circumnavigators 
of Libya could not have seen the sun to their north, 
rest not on the doctrine of the five zones but on real or 
supposed experience. There is no ground for think- 
ing that Hdt. misunderstood the Ionian theory of a 
cireumambient ocean. He rightly denied that the 
earth was circular with an ocean round it ; he rightly 
held that the Caspian was a closed sea, not a gulf of 
the Ocean or the east ; he knew nothing, it is true, 
of the sea on the north of Europe, but the accounts of 
it which he rejected were fabulous. He doubted (not 
denied) the existence of a western ocean and river 
Eridanus ; but the Eridanus was the centre of a mass 
of fable, and knowledge of the west had receded with 
the Persian conquest of Ionia and destruction of its 
commerce. Hdt. may well be right in accepting the 
story of the circumnavigation of Libya. His view 
that Libya is, in relation to Asia, a peninsula like 
Asia Minor though greater, is wrong but preferable to 
the artificial division of the two continents by the Nile. 
He rejects the triple division, Europe, Asia, Libya ; 
that into Europe and Asia he sometimes follows ; 
but his fundamental doctrine is ‘the earth is one.’ 
This is an advance. Hecataeus made the Phasis and 
the Nile flow from the external Ocean. Berger 
denies this, but Hdt.’s words are clear. Popular no- 
tions pictured the north of Europe as occupied by the 
Rhipaean mountains, source of the north wind and 
of the rivers of Scythia (the Ister included), with the 
happy Hyperboreans to the north. The lonians 
followed these in the main. But Hdt. denies the 
Hyperboreans, ignores the Rhipaean mountains, makes 
the Scythian rivers rise in marshes and the Ister in 
the west. In this last point Hecataeus perhaps 
preceded him. The Rhipaean Mountains were not 
identified with the Alps or the Hyperboreans with 
the Celts until much later dates. Hdt. does not say 
that the Ister rises in the Pyrenees, but among the 
Celts near a town Pyrene. The Celts probably did 
not then occupy the Pyrenees, but did live round the 
sources of the Danube, according to Miillenhoff. The 
name Pyrene may simply be due to confusion, or may 
have been applied to a place near the source of the 
Danube and transferred to the Pyrenees. The false 
idea that Eastern Asia Minor was a sort of isthmus 
came from the Ionians. As to the course of the Nile 
and the Persian gulf, Hdt. is wrong but not more so 
than the Ionians. His estimates of site and distance 
are only approximate and no doubt often textually 
corrapt ; but they are often correct. He rejects the 
traditional view that Delphi is the centre of the 
earth. His views of natural phenomena, though 
often mistaken, show a scientific spirit. He repre- 
sents a reaction from the Ionian theories based on an 
appeal to experience, which cleared the ground for 
truer views.—L. Havet in Plawtus Poen. 1415 reads et 
minores for eimmores.—M. Bonnet on Seneca De 
Remediis Fortwitorum (fragments) agrees that the 
Salmasianus is the sole authority and discusses the 
text of several passages.—O. Riemann in Jac. Ann. 
iv. 40 reads te invito ad te for te invite.—J. B. 
Mispoulet, Le Yurbot (Juv. Sat. iv.). The assem- 
bly described by Juvenal is the Imperial Council, not 
the Senate. The 10 members named can all be iden- 
tified, certainly or probably, with known personages, 
eight of them consulars, most of considerable stand- 
ing, two equites. These two, Fuscus certainly and 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 73 


Crispinus probably, were praefectt practorio. The 
story of the turbot is possibly true, but more likely 
invented. The procedure &c. is no doubt true to life. 
It is the only existing description of proceedings of 
the Imperial Council before Hadrian reorganised 
it.—H. Weil, Σύμπτυκτοι ἀνάπαιστοι. The verses so 
called by Pherecrates are not, with Spiro, to be scan- 
ned as Ionics a minori, but are a form of dimeter ana- 
en (ree lata) ee 
paestic (thus—&vdpes πρόσσχετε τὸν νοῦν) to which 
the name ‘folded’ is very appropriate. These lines 
are thus quite different in metrical analysis from the 
catalectic glyconics which the metrical writers 
wrongly identified with them and called Phere- 
cratic.—E. Thomas, The Causes of Ovid's Exile. 
Boissier is right in his account of the growing irrita- 
tion of Augustus at the tone of Ovid’s poetry. He 
and Munro hold that the immediate occasion of 
Ovid’s exile was his presence at some scandalous 
scene between the younger Julia and Silanus. But 
if this were so, he could not have used the phrase 
neptesque pias, Pont. 2, 75. A less public scandal 
was quite enough to lead to the exile, 6.9. a con- 
nection with the freaks or vices of one of the young 
princes of the Imperial House. —R. Cagnat shows by 
an examination of a large number of inscriptions that 
the Roman masons must have possessed manuals 
with various formulae for use on sepulchral and other 
memorials ; he thereby explains many blunders in 
inscriptions and quotes verses that recur with varia- 
tions in many parts of the Empire.—L. Havet emends 
Plautus Persa 181 and Afranius fr. 26—P. Tannery 
discusses several chronological, astronomical and 
mathematical texts with great acuteness.—C. Thiau- 
court on Tacitus, Agricola, 45. Tac. does not mean 
that he personally had anything to do with the con- 
demnation and execution of Helvidius, &c. He pro- 
bably was governing a province at the time. Gan- 
trelle is wrong in thinking legimus, in Agr. 2, corrupt. 
Tacitus’ self-accusation by implying that the whole 
world is guilty is directed against the party who 
cried out with excessive violence against the late 
régime and its adherents. —T. Reinach on Verg. Aen. 
vi. 601 sgqg. adopts in the main L. Havet’s theory of 
ὙΠ τη but thinks saxwm ingens volvunt alit 
escriptive of the punishment of Pirithous, not Sisy- 
phus. Virgil may have broken with tradition in this 
case as well as in that of Phlegyas. If so, Sisyphus 
is not present at all and there is no need to suppose 
a painted or sculptured original. Ixion alone keeps 
his traditional punishment, because in Georg. iii. 
38., iv. 484 Virgil has pledged himself to it. 
There is no inconsistency, as Havet thinks, about 
Theseus. He returned from the underworld in his 
life but was punished there after death.—J. Baillet, 
The Paean of Menchieh to Apollo and Aesculapius, 
discusses the metre, and points out analogies in 
Aeschylus’ Humenides ad tin. and in the paean of 
the Asclepieion at Athens.—O. Riemann points out 
that, in Cicero’s speeches, tantus tumque pracclarus, 
tam insiynis tamque atrox, are the forms of speech 
used, an order of words like tantus tam praeclarusque, 
tam insignis tam atroxque not being found. Tot tam 
gravesque occurs once.—O. Riemannand E. Boutroux 
discuss Cicero’s argument, in De Fin. 1. 19—21 and 
De Fato, 46 against the Epicurean doctrine of the 
‘smallest possible’ deviation of the atoms. 


Rivista di Filologia e d’Instruzione Classica. 
Edd. Comparetti, Miiller and Flechia. Torino. 
1889. 


Fase. 10-12 contain (1) 8S. Mariotti, Plautinuwm, 
a theory that the character of an ᾿Αλαζών, or Miles 
Gloriosus, was suggested by a σκόλιον of Hybrias 


Cretensis, Bergk pp. 1024, 1025. (2) C. Pascal, 
NV te Tibulliane, three in number, the first suggesting 
t t Tibullus wrote poems—perhaps the lost third 
book—to Glycera (Hor. Carm. I. 33), and that the 
poem IV. 13 was addressed to her; the second col- 
lecting from grammarians a few citations from lost 
poems ; the third proposing in III. 5, 47 an emenda- 
tion, rutilis incendia classis, rutilis being gen. sing. 
fem. (8) A. Pasdera, Le Oriyine dei Canti Popolart 
Latini Cristiani, a discussion of the influence of 
Sibylline and Jewish psalimody on early Christian 
hymns. (4) G. Suster, Nuovi Emendamenti al 
Panegirico di Plinio, 26 pages of emendations. 
(5) C. Christofolini, Schedulae Criticae, suggesting in 
Soph. Phil. 661 εἰ δὲ μὴ πάρεστ᾽ and in Antig. 4 
ἀνήκοον for ἄτης ἄτερ. (6) F. Zambaldi, Un Voca- 
bolario geografico di P. Bembo, an account of some 
MS. geographical notes by Bembo, in the Orsini col- 
lection, Codd. Gr. Vat. 1347. 

Fasc. 1-3 (July-Sept. 1889) contains (1) F. Caccia- 
lanza, Cecilio di Calatita e lV Ellenismo a Roma, temp. 
Aug., an exhaustive collection of all the evidence 
relating tu the life and works of Caecilius Calactinus. 
(2) G. Suster, De Plinio Ciceronis imitatore, a com- 
parison of the Panegyriews with the Pro Marcelio ; 
(3) G. Fracearoli, Di aleuni luoghi controversi di 
Pindaro, translations of various passages with dis- 
cussion ; (4) C. Giambelli, Sugli Studi Aristotelici di 
Cicerone, some observations suggesting places where 
Cic. might have been indebted to the περὶ φιλοσοφίας. 


Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Aka- 
demie der Wissenschaften, 1889, Jan.—Aug. 


1V.—Address of Prof. Th. Mommsen on the cele- 
bration by the Academy of the Emperor’s birthday,— 
a stately and spirited exegesis of Hor. Carm. 3, 1—6 
as the initial notes of a new reign.—Reports on the 
progress of the great literary undertakings of the 
Academy. 

XI.—XIII. Prof. Wattenbach on the MS. of the 
gospels in gold letters upon purple parchment, for- 
merly in the collection of the Dukes of Hamilton 
(now in the hands of Mr. Quaritch). A further 
defence of his earlier conjecture that the MS. was a 
gift to Henry VIII. not from Leo X. but perhaps from 
Wolsey, into whose possession it came from the 
library at Ripon Abbey, having been made under 
direction of Archbishop Wilfrid. The main theme 
is prefaced by some valuable remarks on the character 
and age of writing in majuscules. 

XIV.—XY. Professor Kohler gives the text (with 
comments) of a fragmentary inscription found in 
Athens, being an account of the moneys expended by 
the municipal commission of a certain year in the 
purchase of gold and ivory to be used in the construc- 
tion of the statue of Athena Parthenos. 

XX.—XXI. By Dr. Puchstein, the conclusion of 
a study of the arrangement of the figures of the gods 
on the frieze of the great altar at Pergamon. The 
first article was published in the Berichte for 1888 
(pp. 1231 ff.). Poseidon was placed on the N. side of 
the altar close to the N.W. corner. Oceanus stood 
next to Doris at the end of the array of the gods at 
the left side of the staircase. The place of the Gor- 
gons and Erinyes, and probably of the Graeae, was 
on the N. side between Poseidon and Nyx. The 
Moerae with Demeter found their position on the FE. 
side immediately S. of Hera and N. of Apollo. 
Hermes fought at the W. end of the S. side of the 
staircase. ‘The account of Apollodorus is of great 
significance in the determination of these positions. 
The four as yet undetermined figures on the S. side 
are Theia, Hemera, Aether, and Uranus (nut Boreas). 
The identification of certain of the giants follows. 


γ4 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


XXIII.—XXIV. By Dr. Cichorius. Five Greek 
inscriptions of Asia Minor from the 3rd century B.c. 
to the 3rd A.D., with comments. 

XXXIV. Address of Prof. Curtius in commemora- 
tion of Leibniz, touching the spirit of the investiga- 
tion of Greek history. 


Litterarisches Centralblatt, 1889. 

No. 1. Ritter, Untersuchungen iiber Plato. Die 
Echtheit u. Chronologie der Plat. Schriften. ‘ Cri- 
terion: language and style.’ Forty phrases are traced 
through the body of Plato’s writings without decisive 
results. —W. L. Newman, The Politics of Aristotle. 
The text is based more on the second than on the 
the first MSS. family. Introduction and notes show 
a sound judgment.—Treuber, Geschichte der Lykier. 
Valuable result of twenty years’ study.— Veckenstedt, 
Geschichte der griech. Farbenlehre, &c. ‘The doctrine 
of the development of the sense of colour cannot be 
supported by philological facts.’—Wide, De sacris 
Troezeniorum, Hermionensium, Epidauriorum. Col- 
lection of documents, inscriptions, coins.—Herzog, 
Geschichte der rim. Staatsverfassung, Vol. 11. Die 


Kaiserzeit ..... bis zum Regierungsantritt Dio- 
cletians. Deserves high praise. 

No. 2. Arnim, Quellenstudien zu Philo v. Alex- 
andria. 1. The pseudo-Philonian περὶ ἀφθαρσίας 
κόσμου. 2. Philo and Aenesidemus. ‘de ebrietate ’ 


383-88 refer to Ae. 3. The stoic ζήτημα, εἰ μεθυσθή- 
σεται ὃ copds.—Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen 
Hauptvertretern von Dionysius v. Hal. bis auf den 
zweiten Philostratos, Vol. 1. Analyzes the style of 
Polemo, Dio Chrysostom., Herod. Att., Lucian. 

No. 3. Brugmann, Grundriss der vergl. Gramm., 
Vol. I. 1. The task of selecting from a vast mass 
of material and of grouping with clearness beauti- 
fully solved.—Krebs, Zui Rection der Casus in der 
spdteren hist. Gracitdt, 11. “ Accusat. replaces genet. 
after ἀπογινώσκειν, ἀπελπίζειν, &c. in Polybius, 
Diodorus, Josephus.—Griinewald, Der freie formel- 
hafte Infinitiv der Limitation im  Griechischen. 
‘ Phrases like ἑκὼν εἶναι have their origin in negative 
clauses=‘‘as to the being willing ”’=accus. limita- 
tionis.’—Birklein, Entwicklungsgeschichte des sub- 
stantivierten Infinitivs. Covers the time from Homer 
to Xenophon. Claims a gradual increase (Homer 1: 
Thueyd. 298 : Plato 1680).—Baumgarten, Hin Rund- 
gang durch die Rwinen Athens (10 Abb.). For Gym- 
nasia. Due attention is everywhere paid to the re- 
sults of recent investigations. 

No. 4. Boltz, Hellenisch, die allgemeine Gelehrten- 
sprache der Zukunft. ‘Modern Greek destined to be 
the international language.’ The book contains many 
happy translations from and into modern Greek. — 
M. Meyer, Die Giganten u. Titanen in dev antiken 
Kunst wnd Sage. ‘Giants are mythical autochthons’ 
(cf. Welcker J. 787). ‘Titans are traced back to old 
divinities. 

No. 5. Ch. Ploix, La Nature des Diewx. ‘Zeus 
est le grand jour, Poseidon est le jour couvert, tous 
les autre personnifient le crépuscle’ (!) —Iiener 
Vorlegeblitter fiir archtolog. Ucbwngen, hrs. v. Benn- 
dortf. Contains among other things a reconstruction 
of Polygnot’s Iliupersis by Benndorf and Michalek. 

No. 6. Deecke, Die Falisker. Deserves commen- 
dation as an introduction to old-italie philology. ~ 
Brandt, Corpusculum poesis graec. ludibundae, tase. I. 
parador. epic. graec. et Archestrati rell. It is to be 
wished that B. would undertake in the same excellent 
way a collection of iambic and lyric parodies, 

No. 7. Fabricius, Theophanes v. Mytilene und 
Quintus Dellius als Quellen der Geographie des Strabon. 
A good contribution to the question of Strabo’s 
sources. — Oikovouldns, of Δημοσθένους φιλιππικοί. 


Of no scientific value.x—Lander, Carminis saliaris 
reliquiae. Shows great learning and sound judgment. 
—Hermann’s Lehrbuch der griech. Antiquitaten, 1. 
Staatsaltertiimer 1. bes. von Thumser. The book 
ought to have been entirely rewritten. 

No. 9. Bartholomae, Beitrdge zur Flexionslehre 
der indo-germ. Sprachen. The fourth essay is a dis- 
cussion of the nasal in the declension of adjectives 
and participles in -zé which B. claims is not original. 
—Tiimpel, Die Aithiopenlinder des Andromeda- 
mythos. The author’s view that Rhodes is the seat ot 
the Perseus-myth is hardly to be doubted. 

No. 10. Roemer, Studien zu der handschriftlichen 
Ueberlicferung des Aeschylus. The Homeric ionic-epic 
element in Aeschylus is much greater than in Sopho- 
cles or Euripides. Many repetitions are due to his 
naiveté.,—Dinarchi orationes. Adj. Demadis q. f. 
νου. ὑπὲρ τ. Swdexaetias it. ed. Blass. Follows 
chiefly cod. Oxon. Hiatus is avoided. Many new 
conjectures are offered. 

No. 11. Pichler, Virwnum (Graz) m. Atlas. 
Description of the excavations near Klagenfurt 
during the years 1881-83. History of Virunum. 
Catalogue of all the discovered antiquities. 

No. 12. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen. 
1, Th. 1 Abth. ‘Greatly enlarged edition.’— 
Sterrett, An LEpigraphical Journey in Asia Minor 
(Papers of Am. School at Athens). Situation of 
Tavium ascertained through a mile-stone (time of 
Nerva) ; corrected edition of the oracle published in 
Bull. de corresp. hell. 1884, p. 469. The three 
riddles copied by Dr. Diamantides are found— 
No. 243 in Anth. Pal. xiv. 58 and 35, No. 245, 
ibid. 5.—Georges, Lexicon der latein. Wortformen. 
Supplement to G.’s larger dictionary. The inscrip- 
tions are somewhat neglected. —Schroder, Griech. 
Gotter ει. Heroen, 1. Aphrodite, Eros, Hephaestos. 
S. compares Aphrodite and her nymphs with the 
Sanserit Apsaras. Less probable is his view that 
Hephaestos corresponds to a Sanscrit Gandharva. 

No. 14. Helbig, Das homerische Epos aus den 
Denkmédlern erléutert, 2 ed. Shows an increase of 
100 pp. and 43 illustrations. Studniczka’s ‘ Beitrage 
zur altgriech. Tracht’ have caused great changes in 
the chapters dealing with dress.—Gruppe, Die griech- 
ischen Culte und Mythen in thren Bexichungen zu den 
orientalischen Religionen, Vol. 1. Einleitung. G. calls 
his theory ‘ pure adaptionism.’ ‘ Religion is a social 
instinct. This instinct is passive ; there exists only 
a certain susceptibility for religious ideas, which are 
created by one founder for his own interest and 
diffused by missions.” The material in proof of this 
theory will follow in Vel. II. 


No. 15. @Q. Horatiuws Flacecus. Briefe. οὐκ]. v. 
Kiessling. Of the highest importance for the exegesis 
of Horace. 

No. 17. H. Kluge, Zur Enstehungsgeschichte der 


Ilias. (a). The pre-Homeric verse. ‘The hexameter 
is the product of two trochaic tripodies, sometimes 
without the last thesis of the first half-verse and 
anacrusis of the second half-verse, which was allowed 
to have two syllables, while all other theses consisted 
of but one syllable. Along with this there existed a 
tripartite verse (two dipodies and one dipody). The 
Iliad, part of the hymns, and Hesiod’s poems were 
composed originally without regard to quantity but 
only to rhyme. Their present form is the work of 
rhapsodes.’ (ὦ). Origin of the Zliad. According to 
his doctrine of the original hexameter, K. considers 
516 lines containing the fewest dactyls as the most 
ancient lay (ujvis).—Juli Valeri Alexandri Polemi 
res gest. Alexandr. Maced. transl. ex Aesopo Gracco, 
ed. Kiibler. ‘The book was composed between 270 
and 330.’ The text has been improved through col- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. τῷ 


lations ot a Turin MS., which unfortunately has been 
spoiled by Peyron’s chemicals. 

No. 18. Λεξικὸν ἁπάντων τῶν ῥημάτων τῆς ἀττικῆς 
πεζογραφικοῦ διαλέκτου ὑπὸ Ζηκίδου. Much more 
copious than Veitch’s book. The first occurrence of 
each verb is noted.—Kern, De Orphei Epimenidis 
Pherecydis theogoniis quaestiones crit. ‘The work was 
composed at the beginning of the 6th century B.c. 
Epimenides’ Theogony may not have been composed 
later than this time, since it was perhaps used by 
Anaxagoras.’ 

No. 19. Frontini strategematon lib. IV. ed. 
Gundermann. The text much improved by the use 
of a better family of MSS. which were neglected by 
fornier editors. 

No. 20. Aeschylos’ Orestie mit οὐκ]. Anm. v. 
Wecklein. W. proves that the text given here is 
substantially the original, that many doubtful pas- 
sages are genuine, and that in others conjectures are 
needful. The edition makes it no longer necessary 
to speak of the half-ruined condition of this master- 
piece of Aeschylus.—Denkmdler griech. und rom. 
Sculptur in histor. Anordnung. Unter Anleitung v. 
Brunn hrsg. v. Bruckmann. A standard work. 

No. 21. <Ausfiihrliches Lexikon d. griech. u. rém. 
Mythologie. .... hsg. v. Roscher. Lief. 11-13. 
Proves to be a most valuable book. The author of 
‘Hamadryaden’ ought not to have overlooked 
Mannhardt. 

No. 22. H. Miiller, Das Verhdltniss des Neu- 
Griechischen zu den romanischen Sprachen. Worthless. 
—T. Livi ab urbe cond, libb. apparatu critico adjecto, 
ed. Luchs. Vol. III]. An excellent edition. 

No. 23. Mahaffv, Greek Life and Thought from the 
Age of Alexander to the Roman Conquest. Ingenious, 
but not always to be trusted.—ZogoxaAéous τραγῳδίαι 
exd. μετὰ σχολίων ὑπὸ Γ΄. Μιστριώτου. Αἴας. No new 
emendations. The commentary contains but a few 
suggestions. —J. and Th. Baunack, Studien auf dem 
Gebiete des griechischen wu. der arischen Sprachen. 
I. Th. 2. Besides an Epidaurian inscription with 
commentary the studies contain etymological analecta, 
some of which are very bold, while others are happy 
(as the explanation of spiritus asper in ἵππος -- ὃ ἴππος, 
cf. airés=6 αὐτός, Greek negative pref. ve- = ne- in 
véBpos, ‘not eating,’ cf. Lat. nefrens). 

No. 24. ZL. Annaei Senecae oratorum et rhetorwm 
sententiae divisiones colores, ed. H. Miiller. Besides 
cod. Antverp. and Bruxell. (A, B), a Vaticanus (V) 
discovered by Studemund and a second cod. Bruxell. 
(D) going back to another Vaticanus (v.) have been 
used for construction of archetypes. Something will 
be gained by further thorough investigation into the 
peculiarities of Seneca’s style, made possible by M.'s 
excellent edition.—Wendorf, Lrklérung aller Mytho- 
logie aus der Annahme der Erringung des Sprach- 
vermogens. Worthless. 

No. 25. Hygini Gromatici lib. de munitionibus 
castrorum. Hrsg. u. erkl. v. Domaszewsky (3 tab.). 
Cod. Arcerianus again collated and a few points of 
Gemoll’s variae lectiones corrected. Some very happy 
conjectures. —Bilfinger, Der biirgerliche Tag. Unter- 
suchungen tuber den Beginn des Kalendartages im 
class. Alterthume, &c. Contrary to the common 
view and the testimonies of the ancients, that the 
Greek day began at sun-set and the Roman day at 
midnight, B. tries to prove that in both cases the day 
began with sunrise. A detailed refutation will soon 
appear in the ‘ Philologus.’ 

No. 26. Thumb, Untersuchungen iiber den Spiritus 
asper im Griechischen. ‘ About the end of the fourth 
and beginning of the fifth century every initial vowel 
was pronounced with the smooth breathing, which, as 
being necessary for pronunciation of the vowel is 


left unmarked in most languages. There is from the 
beginning a tendency to restrict the use of the spiritus 
asper.—Menge u. Preuss, Lexicon Caesarianum. 


Fasc. IV. Justas satisfactory as the preceding 
fasciculi. 
No. 27. Selections from Polybius ed. by Strachan- 


Davidson (3 maps). Text based on Hultsch’s edition 
with some exceptions. The selection is not always 
happy.—Huemer, Die Genesis des Entschlusses in den 
Tragodien des Ewripides u. Sophocles. Contains many 
ingenious observations. — Merguet, Lexicon zu den 
Scriften Cicero’s. 2 Th. Lexicon zu den philosoph- 
ischen Schriften (1-4 Heft.). Deserves the highest 
commendation. 

No. 28. Polybii historiae, rec. apparat. crit. instr. 
ΕΒ, Hultsch, Vol. I. ed. alt. The text is based on 
cod. Vatican., the authority of which seems over- 
estimated in some cases. The preface is re-written 
and not a few passages of the text are corrected.— 
Meusel, Lexicon Cacsarianum, Fase. IX.-XIII. A 
standard work.—Herzog, Studien zwr Geschichte der 
griech. Kunst (6 plates). Somewhat superficial. The 
first part deals with groups ; the second part with the 
series of gods on vases of lower Italy. The plates 
contain some inedita. 

No. 29. Lezius, De Alexandri Maced. exped. indica 
quaestiones. ‘ Arrian, based on Ptolemy and Aristo- 
bulos, forms the foundation for the history of 
Alexander inclusive of his Indian expedition. Dio- 
dorus, Curtius and Justin are based on popular 
traditions and can supplement Arrian’s report in some 
particulars.’—Handbuch der classischen Alterthwms- 
wissenschaft, hrg. v. Iwan Miller, Vol. VII.—Christ, 
Griech. Litteraturgeschichte. A handy and useful 
book, although many details are open to dispute. 

No. 30. Hesselbarth, Historisch-kritische Unter- 
suchungen zur dritten Dekade des Livius. Although 
in general there ought to be more exactness and clear- 
ness, the book contains not a few valuable suggestions, 
—Ciceronis pro M, Caecilio oratio, ad opt. codd. denuo 
coll. recogn. Vollgraf, accedit apparat. critic. (Leyden), 
Cod. Parisinus and Salisburgensis collated. Text 
shows few improvements. As pupil of Cobet, V. is 
apt to undervalue the MSS. authority. 

No. 31. Rossbach, De Senecae philos. libb. recen- 
sione et emendatione. Insunt Senecae frgg. palatina 
ed. a G. Studemund. Continuation of R.’s ‘De 
Senecae filii scriptis’ and ‘De Senecae dialogis.’ 
‘For the text of the dialogues a cod. Par. saec. xiii. 
should not be neglected; for the consolatio ad 
Polybium, a group to which a Vatic., Paris saec. Xiv., 
and Urb. saec. xv. belong; for de clementia, besides 
cod. Naz., two Paris. saec. xiii. going back to a widely 
differing archetype; for the epistul. especially a 
Florent.’ Then follow a classification of younger 
MSS., an enumeration of about 20 Vatic. and Paris. 
codd. saec. xii.-xiii. not yet collated, orthographica, 
emendations, Appendix on Florus’ Epitoma de T. 
Livio, which is thought to be an epitome of the 
histories of Seneca rhet. 

No. 32. Immerwahr, Die Lakonika des Pausanias. 
The main sources of the 3rd book of Pausanias are 
χρόνων avaypaph (especially used for ch. 1-10, 5) and 
περὶ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι θυσιῶν (for ch. 10, 6-21, 3), 
written by Sosibios of Lacedaemon. Besides these, 
for the histor. introduction Herodotus, Ephorus, 
Theopompus, Phylarchus are used ; for the periegesis 
of Amyclae, Polemon. The source of 21, 4-26, 11 
seems to be a geographical manual of the first century 
after Christ.—Th. Klette, Leonardi Arctini ad Petrum 
Paulum Astrwm dialogus. Zum ersten Male.....hrsg. 

No. 33. Johs. Seger, Byzantinische Historiker des 
x. u. xi. Jhd. 1. Nicephorus Bryennios. The family 
of the Bryennii, sources, style, contents of Nice- 


76 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


phoros’s Chronicle.—Danielsson, Grammatische wnd 
etymologische Studien, 1. κάρα, κέρας and its family. 
—Rénsch, Semasiologische Beitrage zum lat. Worter- 
buche 11. Adject. u. Pronom., Adverb u. Adverbialia. 
Collection of rare words and words with uncommon 
meanings, mostly gathered from the works of eccle- 
siastical authors. —Le Bas, Voyage archéologique 
(1842-1844)..... publ. et comment. par S. Reinach. 
While the inscriptions of the original work have been 
left aside entirely, the Itineraire, Monuments figures, 
and Architecture are given in full, and the number of 
tables is considerably increased. The text is re- 
written for the most part by Reinach. 

No. 34. Noni Marcelli compend. doctr. em. adn. 
Luc. Mueller, 1. Shows all the peculiarities of its 
author : it has brilliant conjectures, but little atten- 
tion is paid to minute questions. The most important 
MSS. have been compared (not always satisfactorily, 
as M. himself admits).—Jorgensen, Kvindfiguren ὁ 
den archaiske graeske kunst. (med 20 Afb.) adject. 
est argum. latine conscript. A catalogue of the 
archaic statues of women found lately on the Akropolis 
of Athens and similar statues of Eleusis, Delos and 
Boeotia. The second part deals with the difference 
between Dorian and Ionian costume. 

No. 36. Tatiani oratio ad Graecos rec. Schwartz. 
Cod. Paris. 451 collated; many new conjectures ; 
excellent indices. Type and paper poor.—AioxvAov 
Προμηθεὺς δεσμώτης ἔμμετρος mapapacis μετ᾽ εἰσαγωγῆ 5 
καὶ σημειώσεων ὑπὸ Ἐανθοπούλου. Introduction con- 
tains nothing new. Text based on Wecklein’s ed. 
‘The paraphrase does not give an idea of the grandeur 
of the original.—Aristotelis quae feruntur de plantis, 
de mirab. auscult., mechanica, de lin. insec., ven- 
torum sit. et nom., de Melisso Xenophane Creorgia 
ed. Apelt. The text of ‘de lin. insec.’ and ‘de 
Melisso’ is renovated and greatly improved. The 
first is based on Vatic. 258 without neglecting 
Laurent. 87. 21. The MSS. of the second are divided 
into two classes: I. class represented by cod. Lip- 
siensis, on which the text is based ; II. class repre- 
sented by Vatic. 1302, all going back to a sometimes 
illegible archetype. The text of the other writings 
shows little improvement. 

No. 37. Ohnesorge, Die rémische Provinzliste von 
297. I.—An excellent discussion of this important 
list.—Apostolis, Lettres inédites, publ. daprés les 
MSS. du Vatican, p. H. Noiret.—Very good edition 
of A.’s letters. Important for the history of Philology 
and the Renaissance. 

No. 38. Topffer, Attische Genealogie. This dis- 
eussion of the (mythical) origin of the families of the 
Attic nobility is a valuable contribution to Attic his- 
tory and archaeolory.—Welzhofer, Geschichte des 
griechischen Volkes bis...Solon. Written in an attrac- 
tive style. W. shows an antipathy against modern 
criticism of the ancient traditions. —T7ragicorum 
Graecorum fragmenta, rec. Nauck, ed. 11. The num- 
ber of fragments is increased (especially from Egyp- 
tian papyri), the text often emended, the results of 
recent investigation are carefully given. (Half a 
column of the reviewer's (H. St.) conjectures fol- 
lows). 

No. 39. Hiller, Beitrdge zur Textgeschichte der gricch- 
ischen Bukoliker.—An excellent investigation. It is 
the first attempt—after Ahrens in Philol. xxx.—to 
classify the MSS., and is at the same time a critical 
edition of 10 poems, with apparatus and prolegomena. 
An invaluable basis for a future critical edition of the 
Bucolic poets, especially Theocritus.—Josephi opera 
omnia post ..Bekkerum rec. Naber I.—Based on 
Niese’s (‘fortasse non semper accuratissimi’) colla- 
tions, but independent in textual matters, often 


deviating from WNiese’s extremely conservative 
edition.—Lacher, Die Handschriften und Classen der 
Aristophanesscholien.—‘The scholia go back to an 
archetype saec. x., of which abstracts and copies were 
made. In the xii. century Tzetses and the author of 
the Byzantine commentary in M, in the xiii. and xiv 
among others Triclinius wrote new commentaries, It 
will be the task of a future editor to construe the 
original archetype of the scholia.’—Bilfinger, Die 
antiken Stundenangaben.—Claims that almost with- 
out exception hora sexta means ‘at 12 o'clock,’ not 
‘the time from 11-12.’ 

No. 40. Duruy, Geschichte des rémischen Kaiser- 
reichs...iibers. v. Herzberg. vol. IVY and V. As 
satisfactory as the preceding volumes.—Jamblichi 
Protrepticus ad fid. cod. florentini ed. Pistelli.—An 
excellent edition of the Protrepticus, which in some 
parts has the value of a MS. for Platonic writings. 
Vitelli has contributed a number of conjectures. A 
good index nominum and index verborum are added. 

No. 41. Koetschau, Die Textiiberlicferung der 
Biicher des Origenes gegen Celsus. Excellent prolego- 
mena to a critical edition of Orig. contr. Cels.— 
Schreiber, Die hellenistischen Relicfbilder erlautert, 
I. Contains ten very good reproductions. The text 
will follow later.—Baumeister, Bilderhefte aus dem 
griechischen und rimischen Alterthum fiir Schiiler. 
Contains selections from B.’s ‘Denkmaler’ and de- 
serves a wide circulation. 

No. 43. Diinzelmann, Der Schauplatz der Varus- 
schlacht. A noteworthy, short essay. Considers the 
Λούπιας of Strabo 7, 1, 5 (—the emendations of 
Bergk in Rh. Mus. 1882, 297 are unknown to D.—) 
as the modern Hunte, Aliso then being Hunteburg, 
the Venner Miihlenbach or Else the ’EAtowy of Dio. 
Hard to reconcile with Dio 54, 33, is D.’s assumption 
of the Bructeri dwelling between Ems and Hunte.— 
Joannides, Sprechen Sie Attisch? An excellent little 
book which is warmly to be recommended.—Plessis, 
Traité de Métrique Grecque et Latine. The Greek 
metres are somewhat neglected. It is intended for 
‘étudiants de nos facultés’ and ‘professeurs des. 
établissements d’enseignement secondaire,’ and will 
very well answer its purpose. 

No. 44. Joh. Schmidt, Die Plwralbildung der in- 
doyermanischen Neutra. The main idea of the highly 
interesting investigation is that the neuter plurals 
were originally fem. sing. used collectively.—Ebert, 
Allgemeine Geschichte der Litteratur des Mittelalters 
im Abendlande bis zum Beginne des XI. “μα, Re- 
vised and enlarged edition of this excellent book. 

No. 45. Wieseler, Archéologische Beitrage, II. 
Collection and discussion of figures supposed to be 
representations of Aesculapius. 

No. 46.  Ribbeck, Geschichte der rimischen 
Dichtung, 11. Deals with the poets of the Augustan 
age. t.’s original investigations and mature judg- 
ment, as well as his lively and attractive style, make 
the book pleasant and profitable reading, both for 
scholars and the general public.—Overbeck, Griech- 
ische Kunstmythologie, 111. 5; Apollo, Lief. 1 and 2. 
More concise than the treatise on Zeus. The discus- 
sion of the so-called ‘canonical ideal’ is rightly 
omitted, the number of illustrations increased and 
improved, the enumeration of monuments is almost 
complete, the text full of suggestions and valuable 
results. 

No. 47. Pomtow, Beitrage zur Topographie von 
Delphi. Will serve as a good basis for future inves- 
tigations, since it gives the complete results of all 
the preceding excavations.—Puchstein, Das ionische 
Capitell, An original and very valuable investigation. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


LIST OF PROGRAMMES ISSUED IN 


E, Anspach.—Die Horazischen Oden des ersten 
Buches in Bezug auf Interpolation, Aufbau und Zeit 
der Abfassung. Ii. Gymm. zu Cleve. 40 S. [On 
Metrik. ] 

Rk. Bartels.—Beziehungen zu Athen und seiner 
Geschichte in den Dramen des Euripides. Joachim- 
thalsches Gymn. zu Berlin. 208. 


α΄, Brambs.—Uber Citate und Reminiszenzen aus 
Dichtern bei Lucian und einigen spateren Schrift- 
stellern. Eichstatt. 83 8S. 

K. Davin.—Beitrage zur Kritik der Quellen des 
ersten punischen Krieges. Grossh. Gymn. zu Schwerin. 
41 5. 1889. [On the Regulus-Embassy. ] 

J. v. Destinon.—De Flavii losephi bello Iudaico 
recensendo ad Benedictum Niese epistula critica. 
symn. zu Kiel. 17 5. 

Κ΄. Deutschmann.—De poesis Graecorum rhythmi- 
eae usu et origine. Gymn. zu Coblenz. 29 S. [On 
accent-poetry of Byzantines of fourth cent. ] 

A. Dréger.—Ovid als Sprachbildner. Gymn. zu 
Aurich. 8. 19 S. [392 new formations, of which 153 
are a.A.] 

E. Eckardt.—De temporum ratione, quae Tra- 
chiniis fabulae Sophocleae subest, et de eiusdem 
fabulae parodi contextu. Gymn. zu Salzwedel. 
12 5. 

Ehwald.—Ad historiam carminum Ovidianorum 
recensionemque symbolae. Gymn. zu Gotha, 20 S. 
[Mainly on the Tristia. ] 

P. Esternaux.—Die Komposition von Frontins 
Strategemata. Franz. Gymn. zu Berlin. 23 S. 
[Defence of authenticity of Bk. iv. ] 

W. Friedrich.—Varietas lectionis codicis Vossiani 
LXX ad Ciceronis libros qui vulgo de inventione 
vocantur duos. Gymn. zu Miihlhausen. 8°. 38S, 

W. Gemoll.—Beitrige zur Kritik und Erklarung 
von Xenophons Anabasis. II. Gymn. zu Kreuzburg. 
33S. [Mainly on use of article]. 

Gropius, k.—Isidor Hispal. Etymol. XIII. 13 (de 
diversitate aquarum) als Handhabe zur Beurteilung 
von Isidorus- Handschriften. Gymn. Weilburg. 
10 8. 

W. Hahn.—Zeus in der Ilias. 
Stralsund. 28S. 

EH. Hasse.—Uber den Dual bei Xenophon und 
Thukydides. Gymn. zu Bartenstein. 215%. 

W. Heraeus, Vindiciae Livianae. 1. Gymn. zu 
Hanau 168. [Comparison of Livy and Tacitus in 
language]. 

£. Hermes.—Kritische Beitrage zu den Briefen des 
sore Pat ΤΠ. Annaeus Seneca. Gymn. zu Moers. 
148. 

Chr. Herwig.—Das Wortspiel in Ciceros Reden. 
Gymn. zu Attendorn. 19S. 

H, Heubach.—Quibus vocabulis artis criticae pro- 
priis usi sint Homeri scholiaste. Realgymn. zu Kise- 
nach, 238. 

H. Karbawn.—De origine exemplorum, quae ex 
Ciceronis scriptis a Charisio, Diomede, Arusiano 
Messio, Prisciano, aliis grammaticis latinis allata 
sunt. Gymn. zu Wernigerode. 18S. 


Il. Gymn. zu 


~J 
— 


1889. 


: D. Kennerknecht.—Zur Argonautensage. Bamberg 
0S. 

P. Kleber.—Die Rhetorik bei Herodot. 
progymn. zu Lowenberg. 27 8. 

P. Krumbholz.-—De Ctesia aliisque auctoribus in 
Plutarchi Artaxerxis vita adhibitis. Gymn. zu Eise- 
nach. 258. 

Fr. Liesenbery.—Die Sprache des Ammianus Mar- 
cellinus. 1. Gymn. zu Blankenburg 21 5. [On 
foreign-words]. 

H. Linke.—Studien zur Itala. 
zu Breslau. 28 S. 

A. Lowinski.—Zur Kritik der Horazischen Sati- 
ren. Gymn. zu Deutsch-Krone. 18 5. [On inter- 
polations. | 

Ff. Macke.—Die rémischen Eigennamen bei Taci- 
tus. III. Gymn. zu Hadersleben. 22 S. 

Georg Meyer.—Der gegenwartige Stand der Thuky- 
dideischen Frage. Klosterschule zu Ilfeld. 42 8S. 
[Against Herbst etc. ]. 

Petrus Meyer.—Quaestiones Platonicae. Gymn. zu 
M. Gladbach. 25 S. [Polemical against Teichmiiller]. 

E. Mollmann.—Herodots Darstellung der Ge- 
schichte von Cyrene. Kneiphofisches Gymn. zu 
Konigsberg. 24 5. 

S. v. Monsterberg-Miinckenau.—De concentu trium 
Aristotelis de voluptate commentationum priorisque 
Nicomacheorum fide. Konig Wilhelm-Gymn. zu 
Breslau. 8. 4 5. 

C. F. W. Miller.—Kritische Bemerkungen zu 


I. Real- 


Elisabeth-Gymn. 


Plinius’ naturalis historia. Johannes-Gymn. zu 
Breslau. 288. [Defence of traditional text against 
Mayhoff]. 


Ernst Miller.—Ciceros Rede de provinciis consu- 
laribus, verdeutscht. Gymn. zu Kattowitz, 1858. 

H, Peters.—Beitrage zur Heilung der Uberliefer- 
ung in Quintilians institutio oratoria. Realgymn. 
zu Cassel. S. 16—25. [On foreign words]. 

Pflug.—Diodor und Livius als Quellen fiir den 
zweiten Samniterkrieg. Gymn. zu Waldenburg. 
16 S. 

Rauch.—Gerundium und Gerundivum bei Curtius. 
Gymn. zu Meiningen. 218. [Statistics]. 

A. Reeck.—Beitrage zur Syntax des Catull. 
gymn. zu Bromberg. 18S. 

Rk. Richter.—Kritische Bemerkungen zu Ciisars 
Commentarius VII, de bello Gallico. Gymn. zuStar- 
gard. 39S. - 

Rich. Schneider.—Zwei Reden. I. Der Prome- 
theus des Aschylus. II. Die Medea des Euripides. 
Gymn. zu Duisburg. 9S. 

E. Rich. Schultze.—Quaestiunculae grammaticae 
ad oratores Atticos spectantes. Gymn. zu Bautzen. 
318. [Statistics]. 

Thalheim.—Quaestiones Demosthenicae. Gymn. 
zu Schneidemithl 13 8. [On Callistr. Mantith. 
Theokr. ] 

CU. Wetzell.—Lexici Antiphontei specimen. Gymn. 
zu Laubach. 18S. [Down to ἀμφότεροι]. 

HT. Wéindel.—Demosthenis esse orationem, quae 
περὶ συντάξεως inscribitur. Gymn. zu Hameln, 22 8. 


Real- 


78 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


LIST OF NEW BOOKS. 


ENGLISH BOOKS. 


Notes on Abbreviations in Greek 


Allen (T. W.) 
Royal 8vo. Sewed. Oxford, Cla- 


Manuscripts. 
rendon Press. 5s. 

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethies, Books 1-4 and Book 
10, Cap. 6 to end, analysed, annotated, and trans- 
lated for Oxford Pass-men by S. H. Jeyes, M.A. 
8vo. W.H. Allen. 6s. 

Baker (A.) Latin Prose for London Students. 12mo. 
pp. 94. Belland Sons. 25. 

Caesar. Commentaries, Book 8. With English notes 
by George Long, M.A., and with Vocabulary by 
W. F. R. Shilleto, M.A. Feap. Bell and Sons. 
15. θα. 

Gallic War, VI. pp. 91. C. Colbeck. 
millan and Co. 18. 6d. 

Cicero. De Amicitia and Pro Balbo. Translated by 
J. Gibson. Svo. Sewed. Cornish and Son. 2s. 6d. 

Pro Balbo. With Introduction, Notes, Vocabu- 
laries, and Translation. Post 8vo. Clive. 2s. 6d. 

Edgar (J.) Alphabetical Index to the Greek Termin- 
ations. Feap. Cornish and Son. 15. 6d. 

Euripides. Uphigeneia at Aulis. With Introduction 
and Notes by Clinton E. S. Headlam. 12mo. 
pp. 156. Cambridge Warehouse. 2s. 6d. 

Harper (W. R.) and Weidner (R. F.) An Introduc- 
tory New Testament Greek Method, together with 
a Manual containing Text and Vocabulary of 
Gospel of John and Lists of Words, and the Ele- 
ments of New Testament Greek Grammar. 8vo. 
pp. 520. D. Nutt. 7s. 6d. 

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, edited by a 
committee of the classical instructors of Harvard 
University. Vol. I. 1890. 8vo. 206 pp. Plates. 
4s, 

Jevons (F. B.) A History of Greek Literature from 
the earliest period to the death of Demosthenes. 
Second Edition. With Appendix and Examination 
Questions for the use of Students. Post 8vo. 
pp. 536. Griffin. 8s. 6d. 


Mac- 


King (J. E.) and Cookson (C.) Introduction to the 
Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, Crown 
8vo. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 5s. 6d. 

Millington (H.) Translation into Latin Verse. Feap. 
Vellum. Bell and Sons. 2s. 6d. 

Pliny’s Letters. Books I. and II. With Introduc- 
tion, Notes, and Plan. Edited by J. Cowan. 12mo. 
pp. 232. Macmillan and Co. 5s. 

Preston (G.) Exercises in Latin Verse of various 
kinds: Key. Feap. Macmillan and Co. 5s. 
Psalms in Greek, according to the Septuagint. Edited 
by Henry B. Swete, D.D. Crown 8vo. Cambridge 

University Press. 2s. 6d. 

Sargent (J. Y.) Exemplaria Graeca: Selections from 
passages for translation into Greek. 12mo. pp. 106 
Frowde. 958, 

Models and Materials for Greek Iambic Verse. 
Crown 8vo. Clarendon Press. 45, 6d. 

Sanday (W.) Appendices to the Greek Testament. 
Feap. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 3s. 6d. 

Tacitus. Histories, Books 3, 4, and 5. With Intro- 
duction and Notes by A. D. Godley. 12mo. 
pp. 804. Macmillan ἃ Co. 5s. 

Theocritus, Bion, and Moschus rendered into English 
Prose, with Introductory Essay by A. Lang. Large 
Paper Edition. 8vo. Macmillan and Co. 95. 

Thucydides. Book 1V. A Revision of the Text, 
illustrating the principal causes of corruption in 
the Manuscripts of this author, by William Gunion 
Rutherford. 8vo. pp. Ixxviili and 134.  Mac- 
millan and Co. 7s. 6d. 

Virgil. Aeneid, Books IX. and X. A Translation 
by A. A. Irwin Nesbit. Post 8vo. pp. 50. Clive. 
15. 6d. 

— Georgics, Lib. I. Edited. for the use of schools, 
by T. E. Page, with Vocabulary. 18mo. pp. 120. ° 
Macmillan and Co. 1s. 6d. 

Waddell (W. W.) Versions and Imitations in Greek 
and Latin. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. 


FOREIGN BOOKS, 


Aristaenctus.  Lettere, tradotte da un Accademico 


florent. 24mo. 98 pp. Soriano nel Cimino 
Capaccini. 2 lire. 
Baumeister (A.) Bilderhefte aus dem griechischen 


und romischen Altertum fiir Schiiler. Heft 3. 
4to. Miinchen, Oldenbourg. 1 Mk. 25. 
Contents : Sagenkreis des trojanischen Krieges. 
pp. 77-116. 
Bénard (C.) L’Esthétique d’Aristote. ὅνο. 371 pp. 
Paris, Picard. 
[Extract Compte rendu des Séances et Travaux 
de I’ Académie des Sciences morales et politiques]. 
Boetticher (E.) La Troie de Schliemann une Nécro- 
pole ἃ Incinération ἃ la maniére assyro-baby- 
lonienne. Avec préface parC. de Harlez. [Extract 
Muséon.] 8vo. vii, 115 pp. 12 plates. Louvain. 
6 Mk. 

Boot (J. C. G.) De historia gymnasii Leovardiensis 
ab origine ad hance aetatem. Editio altera emen- 


data. 8vo. 8, 119 pp. Amsterdam, van Looy. 
1 ΕἸ. 25. 


Breusing (A.) Die Lésung des Trierenratsels ; die 
Inrfahrten des Odysseus, nebst Erginzungen und 


Berichtigungen zur Nautik der Alten.  8vo. 
vii, 124 pp. Bremen, Schiinemann. 3 Mk 50. 

Broccardi (L.) Grammatica latina secondo i metodi 
pit recenti. Parte II]. Morfologia. 8vo. 181, 
684 pp. Torino, V. Bona. θ lire. 

Buresch (K.) Klaros, Untersuchungen zum Orakel- 
wesen des spiteren Altertums, nebst einem Anhang 
das Anecdotum χρησμοὶ τῶν ἑλληνικῶν θεῶν ent- 


haltend. ὅνο. iii, 134 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 
3 Mk. 60. 
Caesar. Commentariicum Supplementis A. Hirtii et 


aliorum. Iterum recognovit et adnotationem 
criticam praemisit E. Hoffmann. 2 vols. 12mo. 
Wien, Gerold’s Sohn. 4 Mk. 50. 

Calonghi (F.) Li’aoristo greco particolarmente in 
Omero : contributo alla sintassi storica della lingua 
ereca. ὅνο. 31 pp. Torino, V. Bona. 

Capellanus (G.) Sprechen Sie Lateinisch ? Moderne 
Conversation in lateinischer Sprache. 12mo. 108 pp. 
Leipzig, C. A. Koch. 1 Mk. 60. 

Censorini de die natali liber. Ad codicum denuo 
collatorum fidem recensuit J. Cholodniak. ὅνο. 
iii, 79 pp. St. Petersburg. Ricker. 1 Mk. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 79 


Chassang (A.) Selectae Narrationes e scriptoribus 
latinis. Avee des notes des arguments et des 
modeéles d’analyse littéraire, ἃ l’usage des classes de 


seconde. 16mo. viii, 307 pp. Paris, Hachette. 
2 fr. 25. 

Cicero. Brutus. Fiir den Schulgebrauch erklirt von 
K. W. Piderit. 3te Auflage besorgt von W. 
Friedrich. S8vo. iv, 306 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 
2 Mk. 25. 


—w— in M. Antonium oratio Philippica secunda. 
Scholarum in usum edidit A. Kornitzer. 16mo. 
77 pp. Wien, Gerold’s Sohn. Boards. 70 Pf. 

—in C. Verremaccusationis liber LV. Scholarum 
in usum edidit A. Kornitzer. 16mo. 127 pp. 
Map. Wien, Gerold’s Sohn. 90 Pf. 

Cornelius Nepos: Vitae Selectae. In usum scholarum, 
edidit R. Bitschofsky. 16mo. viii, 106 pp. Map. 
Wien, Gerold’s Sohn. Boards. 80 Pf. 

Corpus glossariorum latinorum a G. Loewe inchoatum, 
auspiciis societatis litterarum regiae Saxoniae com- 


posuit, recensuit, edidit G. Goetz. Vol. IV. 8vo. 
Leipzig, Teubner. 20 Mk. 
Contents: Glossae codicum Vaticani 3321, 


Sangallensis 912, Leidensis, 67. xlili, 605 pp. 
Corpus inscriptionum latinarum, consilio et auctori- 
tate Academiae litterarum regiae borussicae editum 


Vol. Lil. supplementum. fase. 1. folio. Berlin, 
G. Reimer. 17 Mk. 
{[Contents: Inscriptionum Ilyrici latinarum 


supplementum, ediderunt T. Mommscen, O. Hirsch- 
feld, A. Domaszewski. Fasciculus 1. 1199, 
1372 pp]. 

Dissertationes philologicae Halenses. 
306 pp. Halle, Niemeyer. 8 Mk. 

Draheim (H.) Sophokles. Chore. Ein Fiihrer 
durch die Tragédien des Dichters, 12mo. iv, 75 pp. 
Kisenach, Bacmeister. 80 Pf. 

Dumon (K.) Le Théatre de Polyciéte. 


Vol. X. 8vo. 


Reconstruc- 


tion d’aprés un Modele. Folio. 51 pp. 3 plates. 
Haarlem. 16 Mk. 

Fink (J.) Der Verschluss bei den Griechen und 
Romern. 8vo. 58 pp. Plates. Regensburg. 
Bauhof. 2 Mk. 


Florilegium graecum in usum primi gymnasiorum 
ordinis collectum a philologis Afranis. 4 fasciculi. 
12mo. vi, 72, 71, 74, 70 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 
Each 45 Pf. 

Garrer (A. H.) Schonaeus. Bijdrage tot de ge- 
schiedenis der Latijinsche school te Haarlem. 
8vo. 76 pp. Haarlem, F. Bohn. 1 fl. 

Giri (G.) Deltradurre presso i latini. 8vo. 182 pp. 
Milano, D. Briola. 2 lire 50. 

Goetzeler (L.) Quaestiones in Appiani et Polybii 
dicendi genus cum appendice de codicibus quibus- 
dum Herodianeis. 8vo. 143 pp. Wiirzburg, 
Stahel. 3 Mk. 60. 

Grammatici graeci recogniti et apparatu critico in- 
structi. Partis IV. volumen 1. 8vo. Leipzig, 
Teubner. 14 Mk, 

Contents: Theodosii Alexandrini canones, G. 
Choerobosci scholia, Sophronii patriarchae Alexan- 
drini excerpta, recensuit et apparatum criticum 
indicesque adjecit A. Hilgard. Vol. 1. Theodosii 
canones et Choerobosci scholia in canones nominales 
continens. vi, 417 pp. 

Groh (K.) Geschichte des ost-rémischen Kaisers 
Justin 11. Nebst den Quellen. 8vo. viii, 120 pp. 
Leipzig, Teubner. 3 Mk. 20. 

Gurlitt (W.) Ueber Pausanias. 
8vo. xii, 494 pp. Graz, 1890. 
Lubensky. 10 Mk. 

Gutschmid (A.) Kleine Schriften. Herausgegeben 
von F. Ruhl. Band I. Schriften zur Aegypto- 
logie und zur Geschichte der griechischen Chrono- 


Untersuchungen. 
Leuschner and 


graphie. 8vo. xii, 573 pp. Portrait. 
Teubner. 14 Mk. 

Hartman (J. J.) Analecta Xenophontea nova. 
vii, 352 pp. Leiden. 10 Mk. 

HSIOAOY τὰ ἅπαντα ἐξ ἑρμηνείας K. Sittl. Vol. I. 
8vo. Athens, C. Beck. 10s. 

Heusser (Th.) Griechische Syntax zum neuen Testa- 
ment, nebst Uebungsstiicken zum Uebersetzen ins 
Griechische fiir Formenlehre und Syntax. Mit 
Vorwort von F. Haarbeck. 12mo. vii, 88 pp. 
Basel, Spittler. Bound. 1 Mk. 50. 

Homer. Carmina, recensuit et selecta lectionis 
varietate instruxit A. Ludwich. Pars 11. Odyssea. 
Vol. 1. 8vo. xxviii, 315 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 
8 Mk. 

De Odussee. Metrisch vertaald door C. Vos- 
maer. 8vo. 344 pp. Leiden, A. W. Sijthoff. 
8: 50; 

Horatius recensuit atque interpretus est J. G. Orellius. 
Editio IV. major emendata et aucta. Vol. II. 
Satirae. Epistulae. Lexicon Horatianum. Post 
J. G. Baiterum curavit W. Mewes. Fasciculus 1. 


Leipzig, 


8vo. 


8vo. ii, 160 pp. Berlin, Calvary and Co. 
Each 3 Mk. 
Ihm (G.) Materialen fiir die Ovidlektiire. ὅνο. 


xli, 60 pp. Paderborn, Schoningh. 1 Mk. 

Ihne (W.) Réomische Geschichte. Band VII. Die 
Birgerkriege bis zum Triumvirat. 8vo. iii, 483 pp. 
Leipzig, Engelmann. 5 Mk. 

Jahrbuch des kaiserlichen deutschen archaeologischen 
Instituts. 2s Erganzungsheft. 4to. Berlin, 
G. Reimer. Boards. 24 Mk. 

Contents: Altertitimer von Aegae unter Mit- 
wirkung von C. Schuchhardt herausgegeben von 


R. Bohn. 68 pp. 75 ents. 

Ian (C.) Vorlagen zu Uebungen im lateinischen Stil 
fiir Sekunda. 8vo. vi, 60 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 
lowed. 

Kaegi (A.)  Griechische Schulgrammatik. Mit 
Repetitionstabellen als Anhang. 2t¢ vielfach ver- 
tinderte und verbesserte Auflage. 8vo. xviii. 
286, xlvi pp.  JBerlin, Weidmann. Bound. 
3 Mk 


Kekulé (R.) Ueber die Bronzestatue des sogenannten 
Idolino. 49. Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste 
der archiaologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin. 
4 plates. 4to. 22 pp. Berlin, G. Reimer. 
2 Mk. 80. 

Kovtoyovns (3. A.) Διορθώτικα εἰς τὰ ἔθνικα 
Στεφανοῖ τοῦ Βυζαντίου ἐν οἷς ἀκριβὴς περὶ τοῦ 
Σιμίας λόγος: Ἑλληνικόν ὀνομάστικον περιλαμβάνον 
τὸ πρῶτον ἐξ ἐπιγραφῶν γνωριζόμενα ὀνόματα. 
Ἑκατοντὰς α΄. gr. 8vo. 97 pp. Jena, Doebereiner. 

Képke (R.) Die lyrischen Vermasse des Horaz. Fir 
Primaner erkliirt. 416 Auflage. 8vo. 32 pp. 
Berlin, Weidmann. 60 Pf. 

Kronenberg (A. J.) Minuciana sive annotationes 
criticae in Minucii Felicis Octavium. Specimen 
litterarium inaugurale. 8vo. v, 90 pp. Leiden, 
van Doesburgh. 2 Mk. 


Labbé (E.) Syntaxe latine nouvelle, abrégée pour 
iUsage des Classes. 12mo. xvi, 126 pp. Paris, 
Thorin. 


(Laloux et Monceaux).  Restauration d’Olympe. 
L’Histoire les Monuments, le Culte, et les Fétes. 


Folio. 232 pp. 20 plates and illustrations. Paris, 
Quantin. 100 fr. 
Lindenschmidt (L.) Das rémisch - germanische 


Central-Museum in bildlichen Darstellungen aus 
seinen Sammlungen. 4to. 11 pp. 50 plates. 
Mainz, von Zabern. Boards. 15 Mk, 

Livy. Liber XXII, fiir den Schulgebrauch erklart 
von K. Tiicking. 8:8 verbesserte Auflage. 8vo. 
121 pp. Paderborn, F. Schoningh. 1 Mk. 20, 


80 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Livy. Apparatu critico adjecto edidit A. Luchs. 
Vol. 1V., libros XXVI.-XXX. continens, 8vo. 
xi, 295 pp. Berlin, Weidmann. 3 Mk. 

recognovit J. Sommerbrodt. Vol. I. 


Tawianis, 
pars 2. 8vo. 
6 Mk. 

Mahly (i.) 
Sophokleisches. 
20. 

Mahn (A.) De Dionis Chrysostomi codicibus. 
90 pp. Leipzig. 2 Mk. 

Marcelli, de medicamentis liber. 
reich. 12mo. vi, 414 pp. 
3 Mk. 60. 

Menge (R.) et S. Preuss. Lexicon Caesarianum. 
Fasciculi IX. et X. 8vo. Columns 1025-1280. 
Leipzig, Teubner. Each 1 Mk. 60. 

Merguet (H.) Lexikon zu den Schriften Cicero’s mit 
Angabe siimtlicher Stellen. Theil 11. Lexikon zu 
den philosophischen Schriften. Heft 5 und 6. 
(Lieferung 17-24). 8vo. 641, 998. Jena, Fischer. 
15 Mk. 

Miiller (G. A.) Christus bei Josephus Flavius. Eine 
kritische Untersuchung als Beitrag zur Losung der 
beriihmten Frage und zur Erforschung der Ur- 
geschichte des Christentums. 8vo. ili, 53 pp. 
Innsbruck, Wagner. 1 Mk. 60. 

Neudecker (G.) Der klassische Unterricht und die 
Erziehung zu wissenschaftlichem Denken. Eine 
kritische Untersuchung. 12mo. 39 pp. Wurzburg, 
Stuber. 60 Pf. 

Neue (F). Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. 
Band II. Adjectiva, Numeralia, Pronomina, Ad- 
verbia, Pripositionen, Conjunctionen, Interjec- 
tionen. 3 giinzlich neu bearbeitete <Auflage 
von ©. Wagener. 7 und 8 Lieferung. 8vo. 385, 
512 Berlin, Calvary and Co. 

Ovid. Briefe der Heroiden. Deutsch im Versmasse 
der Urschrift von A. Koch. 8vo. 107 pp. Bamberg. 


civ, 283 pp. Berlin, Weidmann. 


Die Sonnenhelden der Mythologie. 
4to. 44 pp. Basel. 1 Mk. 


8vo. 


Edidit ἃ. Helm- 
Leipzig, Teubner. 


Buchner. 1 Mk. 50. 
Rauch. Gerundium und Gerundivum bei Curtius. 
4to. 21 pp. Meiningen. 1 Mk. 


Reisig (C. K.) Vorlesungen iiber lateinische Sprach- 
wissenschaft. Mit den Anmerkungen von F. Haase. 
Theil II. Neu bearbeitet von F. Heerdegen. 
Lieferungen 2 ἃ. 8. vii, 97, 155 pp. und Register 
von G. Landgraf. lvi pp. 12mo. Berlin, Calvary 
and Co. Each 2 Mk. 

(Calvary’s philologische 
Bibliothek, Band 87 und 88). 

Rosshach (A.) und R. Westphal. 
musischen Kiinste der Hellenen. 
der Rossbach-Westphalschen Metrik. Band 11|. 
Abtheilung 2. 8vo. Leipzig, Teubner. 14 Mk. 

(Contents: Griechische Metrik mit besonderer 
Riicksicht auf die Strophengattungen und die 
iibrigen melischen Metra. 3te Auflage von 
A. Rossbach. Ixxii, 870 pp.) 

Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften von 
J. Baunack, F. Bechtel, Bezzenberger, Blass, 
Collitz, Deecke, Fick, Meister, Miillensiefen, 
Prellwitz. Herausgegeben von Collitz und Bechtel. 
Zand III. Heft 4. Hialfte I. 8vo. Gdttingen, 
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. 2 Mk. 

{Contents : Die Inschriften von Aigina, Phole- 
gandros, Anaphe, Astypalaia, Telos, Nisyros] 
Knidos, bearbeitet von F. Bechtel. 195, 300 pp., 

Schmid (W.) Der Atticismus, in seinen Haupt- 
vertretern von Dionysius von Halikarnass bis 


und archiologische 


Theorie der 
Als 3 Auflage 


auf den II. Philostratus dargestellt. Band II. 
VI. Abschnitt: Aristides. 12mo, 316 pp. Stutt- 
gart, Kohlhammer. 5 Mk. 

Schreiber (T.) Die hellenistischen Reliefbilder. 
Lieferung 2. Folio. 10 plates. Leipzig, Engelmann. 
Each 20 Mk. 

Statius. lied von Theben, deutsch von A. Imhof. 
Mit gelegentlichen sachlichen und kritischen Er- 
lauterungen. Theil 11. VII.—XII Buch. 8vo. 
153, 328 pp. Llmenau, Schroeter. 3 Mk. 

Strack (H. 1.)  Vollstaindiges Worterbuch zu 
Xenophon'’s Anabasis, 5* vielfach verbesserte 
Auflage. 8vo. iv, 155 pp. Leipzig, Hahn. 1 Mk. 20. 

Studniczka (F.) Kyrene, eine altgriechische Gottin. 
Archaeologische und mythologische Untersuch- 


ungen. 8vo. xi, 224 pp. Cuts. Leipzig, Brock- 
haus. 9 Mk. 
Talbot. Mythologie greeque et Mythologie latine 


d’aprés les Travaux de la Critique moderne, 12mo. 
xxil, 523 pp. Paris, Lemerre. 2 fr. 50. 

Tegge. ateinische Schulphraseologie. Heft 2. 8vo. 
94 pp. Berlin, Weidmann. 1 Mk. 20. 

Thicle (G.) Quaestiones de Cornifici et Ciceronis 
artibus rhetoricis. Dissertation. 8vo. 112 pp. 
Greifswald. 1 Mk. 50. 

Thommen (E.) Studien zu Thukydides. Inangural- 
Dissertation. S8vo. 71 pp. Basel. 1 Mk. 20. 
Thucydides. De bello Peloponnesiaco libri VIII. Ad 

optimorum librorum fidem editos explanavit E. F. 


Poppo. LEditio 111. quam auxit et emandavit 
J. M. Stahl. Vol. 1. Sectio 2. 8vo. 260 pp. 
Leipzig, Teubner. 3 Mk. 


Vries (ὃ. G.) Exercitationes palaeographicas in 
bibliotheca universitatis Lugduno- Batavae in- 
staurandas indicit de Vries. [Inest commenta- 
tiuncula de codice Ciceronis Cat. Mai. Ashburn- 
hamensi nune Parisino]. 8vo. 45 pp. Leiden, 
Brill. 2 Mk. 

Wackernagel (J). Das Dehnungsgesetz der griech- 
isechen Composita. 4to. iv, 66 pp. Basel, 
Schneider. 1 Mk. 80. 

Wessely (C.) Die Pariser Papyri des Fundes von El- 
Faijim. 4to. 162pp. Wien. Tempsky. 8 Mk. 

[Extr. Denkschriften der kaiserl. Akad. der W%s- 
senschaften]. 

Witrzens (J.) Betonungssystem der griechischen 
Sprache. Auf etymologische Grundlage entwickelt. 
8vo. vii, 151 pp. Teschen. 3 Mk. 60. 

Wohlrab (M.) Die altklassischen Realien im Gym- 
nasium. 8vo. ix, 82 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 
Bound. 1 Mk. 20. 

Xenophon’s Anabasis fiir den Schulgebrauch heraus- 
gegeben von E. Bachof. Band II. Buch 4-7. 
Text und Erliuterungen. 8vo. 110, 150 pp. 
Cuts. Paderborn, F. Schoningh. 1 Mk. 80. 

Historia graeca. Recensuit Ὁ, Keller. 

Editio minor. 12mo. xvii, 295 pp. Leipzig, 

Teubner. 90 Pf. 

-- Memorabilien. Erklirt von L. Breiten- 
bach. 6te Auflage bearbeitet von R. Miicke. 8vo. 
268 pp. Berlin, Weidmann. 2 Mk. 25. 

Zielinsky. Die Marchenkomédie in Athen. 
72 pp. St. Petersburg. 2 Mk. 

Zimmermann (A.) Kritische Untersuchungen zu 
den Posthomerica des Quintus Smyrnaeus. Er- 
lauterung zu einer demnichst erscheinenden Aus- 
gabe. 8vo. vii, 218 pp. Leipzig, Teubner 
4 Mk. 


8vo. 


The Classical Review 


MARCH 1890. 


A FUTURE LIFE AS REPRESENTED BY THE GREEK TRAGEDIANS. 


Prruaps there is no portion of a nation’s 
religious belief that contains so much history 
as that which relates to the destiny of man 
after death. The degree of civilization 
attained, current ethics, national idiosyn- 
crasies of moral or physical constitution, 
political status, national pursuits—are all 
directly or indirectly reflected in a people’s 
views as to what is to succeed this present 
life of ours ; so that from the peculiar eschat- 
ology of a nation at a given period it would be 
possible to reconstruct not a little of the 
political, social and moral conditions of the 
epoch. It is indeed with the nation as with 
the individual in this respect as In many 
others. If we could know of a man just his 
thoughts about the dim hereafter, his hopes 
and fears, their influence upon his life and 
conduct, or perhaps the absence of influence, 
and nothing else—there would be little more 
that we should need to know to appraise his 
religion, his philosophy, his moral character, 
the man himself. ‘ Qualis artifex pereo,’ said 
the dying Nero. ‘Deus fio, ut puto,’ sighed 
another Roman emperor, in grim satire of 
the weary helplessness of his last illness— 
such a god! The words are eloquent with 
half the story of two lives. 

So with the nation: its religion pieces 
out its history, its history pieces out its 
religion, Now, the Greek of the age of 
Pericles has left us in his history, his phil- 
osophy, his literature, his art, ample means 
of forming some conception of his remark- 
able personality. We know how he looked, 
what were his salient characteristics, what 
were his pursuits and, to a large extent, 
what were his thoughts. What then 
was the attitude which his_ eager, 

NO. XXXI. VOL. IV. 


healthful, individualized nature maintained 
towards the inevitable hour when he must 
leave this world of whose good things he 
enjoyed so large a portion, and go out into 
the darkness ? 

Greek literature presents us with two very 
diverse but equally striking pictures of the 
after-world. The Homeric poems, and in par- 
ticular the eleventh Odyssey, contain the 
earlier, the Platonic dialogues, and in par- 
ticular the tenth book of the Republic, a 
later one. But though no other Greek 
writer, except perhaps Pindar, deals with 
the question in so direct and interesting a 
manner, we should be wrong in taking either 
of these views as representing at all nearly 
that of the average Athenian of the best age. 
Both are probably contributory of a portion, 
but of a portion only of the truth ; for 
although the thought, even of the average 
Athenian of that time, had taken a _philoso- 
phic cast that differentiated it considerably 
from that of the Homeric Greek, yet we 
know that the full Platonic conception was 
in definiteness and coherence far in advance of 
any that had been previously entertained, and 
that even with Socrates himself a far simpler 
though not less earnest und spiritual view 
was less a matter of belief than of conjecture. 
Somewheretherefore between the twoextremes 
of primitive superstition on the one hand and 
the bold speculation of the philosopher on the 
other, should be sought an approximation to 
current religious belief. And to this intent 
surely one could not do better than investi- 
gate the utterances in which the spirit of 
that age most truly found voice—its drama. 
Socrates and Plato spoke to the philosophic 
few, but Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euri- 

G 


82 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


pides to the intelligent many, which in that 
great age meant the masses of their country- 
men. The soldier of Marathon and Salamis, 
the colleague of Pericles in Samos, the 
pupil of Anaxagoras, must have been typi- 
cal products of their time ; and distinct as is 
the impress of a vivid personality upon the 
works of each of these three great men, and 
with all allowance on the other hand 
for traditional sentiment and the stereotyped 
allusions of poetical phraseology, we can 
hardly doubt that, when they spoke of the 
great problems of life and destiny and con- 
duct, it was as the majority of their contem- 
poraries thought ; that when they were silent 
they emphasized a doubt or an indifference 
that their audiences would share. They 
were teachers, but Athens was παίδευσις 
“EAAddos, and they had learnt their lesson at 
her knees. What then have they to tell us 
of Hellenic anticipations of a future life? 
The immortality of influence belongs to the 
Greeks as it has belonged to no other nation. 
What were their personal hopes and fears 
in death and its sequel? what was to become 
of that individuality they so highly prized 
and reverenced, that youthful intensity of 
being, which is spoken of in the Zimaeus as 
their dominant characteristic ? 

I have said that by the fifth century B.c. 
the Homeric conception must have ceased to 
be largely representative, but there is little 
reason for doubting that the later belief 
was essentially the same as the earlier, only 
in a different stage of evolution. If there- 
fore we would know what survived of it 
in later conceptions, we must understand a 
little of its general outlines. 

At the first glance it is evident that the 
early Greek like the early Hebrew had but 
the vaguest notions as to a possible future 
after death ; indeed on the whole the Ho- 
meric Greek had the more definite concep- 
tion, such as it was, of the two. It is not 
difficult to make a guess at the reason of 
this in the case of the Jew, and in that of 
the Greek a sufficient general explanation 
may be found in his active physical and 
moral organization, his buoyant youthfulness 
of spirit, his delight in the mere animal 
joy of existing in strength and beauty upon 
the earth. How could such a creature help 
living in the present? For if even the 
more immediate future contained the men- 
ace of old age and failing strength, the 
loss of all that made life to him worth 
living, how much more must he have shrunk 
with fear and loathing from the thought of 
the consummation of that decay in death. 
There is a child in all of us, says Plato 


(Phaedo, 77 ἘΠ, whose hobgoblin terrors of 
the dark must be charmed away: and in 
the earlier Greek the child was uppermost 
and none knew the potent charms of divine 
philosophy to sing it quietly to sleep. So 
he projected into the world he dimly 
imaged as the abode of the dead the 
gloom, the uncertainty, the floating mists, 
the joylessness of his own state of mind 
concerning it. Being half in doubt whether 
the dead exist at all, he imagined a state of 
half-existence ; a sort of shadow-play where 
the shadow-man sustains feebly the part of 
the old joyous self, whose hunting and 
wrestling, feasting and fighting are mocked 
for ever by the dreary semblance of life and 
action, that flits grey and shifting over his 
fields of asphodel. 

The shade preserves to a certain extent 
its personal identity, that is, it retains the 
outward form and features of the living 
man, his tasks and pursuits, with memory 
enough to know what it has lost, emotion 
enough to envy the living. But for the rest, 
its thought and feeling are as thin and in- 
effectual as its bodily constitution. Even 
such a mother as Anticlea, who had died 
heart-broken with longing for her lost 
Ulysses, does not recognize him in Hades, 
till he has suffered her to drink the warm 
life-blood of the beasts of sacrifice, which 
sends flooding back for a brief moment the 
tide of memory and affection into the cold 
and passionless ghost. ; 

This dubiousness as to the actual physical 
condition of the departed further affects the 
moral side of the question, by the same ‘ con- 
fusion of doubt with the object of doubt.’ 
Our Greek did not know, he could not besure, 
that the deeds done in the flesh influenced 
for good or ill the lot of the dead. On the 
earth, as often as not, the criminal got off 
scot-free, and the righteous suffered as the 
victims of successful wickedness, or as the 
blind puppets of fate. He himself did not 
much care to think about dying, but on the 
whole he did not see much reason for sup- 
posing that, if he were worse off in other 
respects, he would be better off in this. So 
in the Homeric Hades there is no distinc- 
tion between the lot of the virtuous and 
the guilty. A few exceptional criminals 
indeed, like Sisyphus and Tantalus, suffer 
directly, at the hands of the Zeus their ὕβρις 
has outraged, Tartarean horrors of punish- 
ment; and a few favoured mortals like 
Menelaus and Neoptolemus enjoy the 
eternal bliss of the Fortunate Islands— 
though as a privilege, not as a reward. 
Minos and Rhadamanthus are judges 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 83 


among the dead, but only because they, like 
others, continue a semblance of their former 
occupations. But their sentence is mean- 
ingless and ineffectual, and does not at all 
determine the condition of the shade. 
Good and bad alike, are only not annihilated : 
their common doom is worse—they know 
themselves nonentities, νεκύων ἀμενηνὰ 
κάρηνα. 

How great is the contrast to all this pre- 
sented by the story of Er the son of Arme- 
nius, by the attitude of Socrates before his 
judges, by the whole tone of the Crito and 
Phaedo, it is unnecessary to illustrate in de- 
tail We may allow that the optimistic 
temper of Socrates and the peculiar cireum- 
stances of his death naturally of themselves 
evolved a hope out of the thought of death ; 
that Platonic Ontology and Teleology, re- 
quiring the eternal existence of all that is at 
all, and denying existence to all but mind, 
required as their logical deduction the im- 
mortality of soul as soul :—still, granting all 
this, it is certain that current theology in 
the age of Pericles bore its own traces, even 
if scattered and obscure, of a changing atti- 
tude towards the thought of death and the 
hereafter, just as that there had come upon 
the spirit of the age a change in tone and 
feeling, which led the way inevitably to 
bolder speculation, and was indeed itself the 
necessary result of the nation’s growth from 
the childhood of the Homeric to the enquir- 
ing and fearless adolescence of the Periclean 
age. 


I. 
AESCHYLUS. 


* It is often said that the religion of 
Aeschylus is a religion of Destiny, a system 
where, above and behind even the mightiest 
of the Olympian hierarchy, Fate, μοῖρα, 
compels the universe to submission, and 
makes men the plaything of wanton omni- 
potence. And this is true, but with reserva- 
tions. Destiny does indeed control man’s 
actions, but as the embodiment not of law- 
lessness but of law ; man is indeed powerless 
to contend with her, but her operations do 
not involve the negation of free-will. If 
blind infatuation hurries man to destruction, 
it is because he failed in that humility and 
moderation which he was at first free to 
exercise, and because the divine will makes 
man the instrument of his own fall by per- 
mitting the surrender of all self-control, the 
accomplishment of ail dark and impious 
designs. And if the incidence of the curse 


is sometimes apparently on the innocent 
head, that is because the solidarity of the 
family—in which Aeschylus believed as 
firmly as any modern student of Heredity— 
means the inheritance of responsibility ; the 
fathers cannot eat sour grapes but the 
children’s teeth are set on edge. δρᾶσαντι 
παθεῖν. We may not lay on Destiny the 
blame of our crimes. 


ε a , oS 7 ΄, 
ἢ μοιρᾶ TOVTWV, ὦ TEKVOV, παραιτια, 


says Clytemnestra in her last hour, fain to 
excuse her wickedness. Be it so, replies the 
avenging Orestes, but that same Destiny 
has wrought thy doom as well. 


N a? ΄ , 
και τόνδε τοίνυν μοιρ ἐπόρσυνεν μορον. 


Eternal Justice might indeed have used the 
adulterous wife as the minister of divine 
vengeance on the haughty son of Atreus, 
foredoomed by that Thyestean banquet ; yet 
not arbitrarily, but through the working of 
another law—that one sin leads on to 
another, blunting conscience, destroying the 
moral sense. Clytemnestra of her own free 
will chose the path which led from unfaith- 
fulness to murder, so providing a willing 
instrument in the hand of the same in- 
exorable Fate that in turn demanded her 
own destruction. So with Orestes. Obli- 
gations both human and divine urge him to 
take vengeance for his father. So far his 
deed is righteous. Yet inasmuch as he is 
the son of Clytemnestra as well as of 
Agamemnon, it is sinful, and he must suffer 
for the matricide, that the severe integrity 
of the moral code may not be impaired, even 
in working out its own decrees. 

But although Orestes suffers in accord- 
ance with the same stern law, ‘ δράσαντι 
παθεῖν, that bade him slay his mother, his 
punishment in view of that moral obligation 
is made instrumental of divine mercy. 
“Παθήματα μαθήματα, is the second great 
article of the Aeschylean faith, and like the 
rebellious Titan, Orestes emerges from his 
sufferings strengthened and purified: the 
Erinnyes making inquisition for blood are 
become the Eumenides, the kindly influences 
of a later life that has seen severity justified 
by love. 

It has been necessary to touch upon the 
religious scheme of Aeschylus—which is in- 
deed both obscure and complicated in its 
details, though hinging on one strong and 
central conviction—because a writer’s views 
as to the destiny of the soul and a system 
of rewards and punishments after death are 
not independent of his general belief regard- 

a 2 


84 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ing the relation between God and man. 
After all, what is most of interest is not the 
details of allusions to the other world, in 
which so much allowance must be made for 
poetical imagery, but such questions as: 
What is the connexion between this life 
and the next? How far do our actions now 
affect our condition hereafter? Does the 
doer still suffer beyond the grave? Is he 
still permitted by suffering to learn? In 
order to answer these questions it will 
perhaps be advisable to group the passages 
for examination under definite headings, 
according as they afford typical though not 
exhaustive illustration of different important 
points of eschatological belief, viz. as relat- 
ing to: (a) retribution and compensation 
in the future life, with their influence on 
conduct; (Ὁ) the maintenance of human 
relationships ; (6) intercourse between the 
dead and the living; (d) the general condi- 
tion of the departed. 

I have placed the questions of rewards 
and punishments first, because with Aeschy- 
lus, as I have already pointed out, the idea 
of divine justice and divine wisdom is of 
pre-eminent importance. Upon it hangs 
his whole theology, a theology in which, as 
M. Courdavaux points out in an interesting 
study of the poet, the two opposing currents 
of contemporary Greek thought met—one 
carrying the mind towards higher and purer 
ideas of divinity, and the other sweeping 
mercilessly back upon the terrors of the 
past. 

(a) Rewards and Punishnents.—Believing 
as Aeschylus did that the two great doc- 
trines I have quoted, with that of the 
solidarity of the family, sufficiently justify 
God’s dealings on earth with men, he does 
not look forward to the future life as afford- 
ing readjustment of the inequalities, recon- 
ciliation of the contradictions, satisfaction 
of the frustrated efforts of the present. 
This is a modern tendency often enough 
carried to an extreme. He believed that 
life itself, if we knew how to read it, con- 
tains the solution of its own problems. A 
firm trust in divine justice and wisdom does 
not under these circumstances require that 
the second life should essentially differ from 
the present, except inasmuch as it is condi- 
tioned by a great physical change. 

Aeschylus therefore would not look for- 
ward with any sense of hope or comfort to 
a new order; but inheriting the strong 
Greek ‘sub-consciousness of immortality’ he 
applies it to the further widening of the 
field for the exercise of relentless justice, 
‘the most tangible form in which Omnipotence 


(‘call him Zeus or by whatsoever title it 
please him to accept’) reveals himself to 
mortals. There is for instance a passage in 
the Eumenides (322) which, after describing 
the relentless inquisition for blood of the 
Erinnyes, adds, to correct the possible im- 
pression that in death at least their victim 
might escape, 


θανὼν δ᾽ οὐκ ἄγαν ἐλεύθερος. 


So a few lines above Night is said to have 
borne them 


οὖς ἀλαοῖσι καὶ δεδορκόσιν 
ποινάν (312). 


And again in lines 910-12 :-- 


μέγα yap δύναται 
, > Ν ΄ὔ as , 
πότνι᾽ Epwvs παρά τ᾽ ἀθανάτοις 
τοῖς θ᾽ ὑπὸ γαῖαν. 


Similarly in the Supplices, 224--227 --- 


3OX εὐὐὐς τι") Ν 
ΕΣ οὐδὲ μὴ ᾽ν Αἰιδου θανὼν 
, , 5 γι / AN 
φύγῃ μάταιος αἰτίαν, πράξας τάδε. 

3 = ΄ 5 ΄ ᾽ ε , 
κἀκεῖ δικάζει τἀμπλακήμαθ᾽, ws λόγος, 
ιν δ΄ 5 a e ». / 
Ζεὺς ἄλλος ἐν καμοῦσιν ὑστάτας δίκας. 


And among the fragments is one which 
speaks of a man as inevitably finding at 
last the requital of his sins, whether towards 
god or fellow-man :— 


μέγας γὰρ ἽΑιδης ἐστὶν εὔθυνος βροτῶν 
ἔνερθε χθονὸς 
δελτογράφῳ δὲ πάντ᾽ ἐπωπᾷ φρενί. 


Instances might yet be further multiplied 
to prove that the distinct advance on the 
Homeric doctrine, of a clear idea of re- 
tribution in the other world, had been 
arrived at. But for traces of the correlative 
belief in the reward of virtue, which is as 
necessary as the punishment of sin for the 
perfect ideal of Justice, we seek in vain. 
The omission is the more marked by the 
contrast offered by his contemporary Pindar. 
In the second Olympian, for instance, a 
vivid and alluring picture is drawn of the 
joys of the just—déaxpuy νέμονται αἰῶνα, 
where ocean breezes sigh round the islands of 
the blest ; flowers of gold burn on land and 
water, whereof they carry garlands in their 
hands and wreath their heads with crowns: 
while the wicked 


, , / 
ἀπροσόρατον OXVEOVTL πόνον. 


And again in a fragment of the Threnoi: 
‘For them shines the might of the sun 
below, when here it is night ; and meadows 
of red roses skirt their city, shaded with 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 85 


incense-trees and orchards laden with golden 
fruit. And some delight themselves with 
horses and wrestling, and some with draught- 
playing, and some with lyres, and around 
them fair-flowering all plenty blooms. And 
a delightsome smell is spread about the 
place, where they mingle ever all goodly 
spices in the beacon-flame upon the altars 
of the gods.’ 

There is nothing like this promised in the 
pages of Aeschylus, and yet tradition says 
that he like Pindar was a Pythagorean (Cic. 
Tusc. II. 10). ‘Non poeta solum, sed 
etiam Pythagoreus: sic enim accepimus.’ If 
therefore, as we are told, Pindar’s peculiar 
views about the world to come are of Pytha- 
gorean origin, it is the more surprising that 
Aeschylus has nothing to say of the happi- 
ness in store for the pure and holy of life. 
But perhaps the poet, who believed (4g. 797) 
that Justice may often be found in the 
smoke-dimmed cabins of the poor, when the 
ὕβρις of the rich has banished her from their 
gilded palaces, revolted from the anticipa- 
tions which promised the futurity of bliss in 
those islands of the west only to the great 
and strong. Without wealth and prosperity 


the virtues of the μεγαλόψυχος hero of” 


Pindar could have had no room for develop- 
ment, and indeed the value of wealth in 
this connexion is certainly hinted at in the 
second Olympian, though the exact inter- 
pretation of the passage is obscure. After 
all, the difference between the two is mainly 
in the point of view. With both the future 
continues the essential characteristics of the 
present, but circumstances and _ natural 
temperament lead the two poets to bring a 
different side of the belief into prominence. 
With Pindar to be rich and prosperous was 
in all probability to be virtuous, provided 
always the due sense of moderation and 
submission to the gods kept men secure from 
divine envy. ὕβρις is with him the dreadful 
exception ; so he delights to paint the rewards 
of the future. But with Aeschylus ὕβρις is 
all too common ; the rich too often fall from 
overweening confidence in their prosperity. 
Men must be warned by the continual 
reminder that Justice though halt of foot is 
unfailing in her pursuit and, though she 
may not overtake her victim in this life, 
that there is the life beyond where escape is 
hopeless. 

If Aeschylus could have freed himself 
from the dreary influence of the past and 
of his own almost exaggerated moral sense, 
his real belief in divine justice and wisdom 
would no doubt have found room to expand 
into some comforting hope for the sorrowful, 


the suffering, and the oppressed, perhaps 
too into a belief that in the future life as 
well, human character might be sublimated 
by suffering. But if his belief ever worked 
out its logical conclusion, he did not give it 
to his fellows, certainly not in his surviving 
works. Practically with him the other 
world exists, at least as a felt influence on 
conduct, only for the guilty. 


‘Victurosque dei celant, ut vivere durent, 
Felix esse mori—’ 


said Lucan, stung with that fierce depres- 
sion that seems the bane of a complex 
civilization. Perhaps the thought was in 
the mind of Aeschylus that for a yet loftier 
purpose the gods conceal the happiness of 
death, that chastening fear and patient 
acceptance of discipline might merit its 
rewards, and prepare fit recipients of the 
gift of immortality. 

(ὁ) Permanence ef Human Interests and 
Relationships.—That the dead retain a dis- 
tinct personality is part of the rudest forms 
of belief in an after-life, and in Greece indeed 
belongs rather to the simple popular beliefs 
than to the philosophical systems, which tend 
either in the direction of Metempsychosis 
or of reabsorption of the individual in the 
Universal Soul. Neither of these modes of 
extended existence can be described as per- 
sonal immortality, though they may satisfy 
a belief in the immortality of the life- 
principle. In Aeschylus there is no trace 
of either of these hypotheses. Pythagorean 
though we are bidden to consider him, not 
only personal characteristics remain, but 
the more transient circumstances of rank 
and influence. Darius is still in Hades 
δυναστᾶν δυνάστης, reigning as king among 
the dead. And if Agamemnon was without 
such honour, it was only because he had died 
in no kingly fashion, shamed and dis- 
honoured, without due rites of worthy 
burial. Would that he had died on the 
scene of his triumphs, though in a foreign 
land, yet in a soldier’s grave, sing the chorus 
of the Choephoroe— 


φίλος φίλοισι τοῖς 

ἐκεῖ καλῶς θανοῦσιν 

κατὰ χθονὸς ἐμπρέπων 
σεμνότιμος ἀνάκτωρ 

πρόπολός τε τῶν μεγίστων 
χθονίων ἐκεῖ τυράννων, 
βασιλεὺς γάρ ἦν, ὀφρ᾽ ἔζη, 
μόριμον λάχος πιμπλάντων 
χεροῖν πεισίβροτόν τε βάκτρον. 


Choe. 346-354. 


86 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


But not these outward trappings only sur- 
vive the transition. Moral characteristics 
still cling to the bodiless ghost—fierce un- 
dying revenge, as well as the kindly feelings 
sprung from tender human relationships :— 


τέκνον, φρόνημα τοῦ 
θανόντος οὐ δαμάζει 
πυρὸς μαλερὰ γνάθος. 
Choe. 510. 


The wrath of Agamemnon (Choe. 285) can 
make itself felt among the living in disease 
and madness, the assaults of the Furies and 
dire dreams, as long as he is unavenged ; he 
can distinguish between the offerings of 
filial affection, however humble, and the 
perfunctory sacrifice of unholy hands. The 
lament of Electra (Choe. 364) is a more pre- 
cious offering than gold, and its soothing 
influence has become a helper of his children 
with the wrathful dead :— 


τῶν δὲ κρατούντων 
χέρες οὐχ ὅσιαι στυγερῶν τούτων" 
παισὶ δὲ μᾶλλον γεγένηται. 
Choe. 370-371. 


The Humenides and Persae afford many 
similar instances. But here again we some- 
what wonder that it is still the gloomy side 
of the case that is prominent—nothing of 
reunion with those we have loved and lost 
to soften separation, no thought that we go 
to them though they return not to us. A 
strain of fresh human sympathy there surely 
was, tender and pitiful, in the poet who has 
left us the pleading eyes of Iphigenia and 
her dumb lips that should have moved pity 
with memories of sweet girlish songs. It 
was there, but it makes no sign to soften 
the terrors of futurity. 

(c) Communication between the Living and 
the Dead.—In the seven extant plays of 
Aeschylus there are two apparitions of the 
dead, and numerous allusions to ghostly 
visitations as well as to the phantom forms 
of dreams. Both the eidolon of Clytemnestra 
and of Darius appear visibly on the stage 
and address themselves to the Chorus. They 
are therefore actual shades exercising their 
privilege of re-visiting the earth and holding 
intercourse with the living. The ancients 
seem to have believed in a very close con- 
nexion between these waking visions and 
the forms we see in dreams, which they 
considered to be equally faithful revelations 
of the spirit-world, though different in kind. 
Some anthropologists go so far as to say 
that a belief in an existence after death 
actually arose in primitive peoples purely 
from an attempt to explain dreams of the 


departed. However that may be, the Greeks 
had a firm belief in the power of the dead to 
appear to the waking senses in a vision 
(ὕπαρ) ; and when the bodily senses are laid 
to sleep, they believed that the mind by its 
own peculiar faculties, whose activity is in- 
creased in proportion as they act inde- 
pendently of the body, perceives the spiritual 
inhabitants of the invisible world with which 
it has itself more intimate connection than 
with the visible. 


ὁρᾶτε πληγὰς τάσδε καρδίας ὅθεν; 
εὕδουσα γὰρ φρὴν ὄμμασιν λαμπρύνεται--- 


cries Clytemnestra to the sleeping Furies ; 
and though she describes herself as ὄναρ, yet 
it is evident that there is present before us 
all that is left of the dead queen who, ever 
hungry for revenge, and scorned and flouted 
in Hades, rises to the upper air to goad on 
the sleeping ministers of her wrath. 

This idea of the duality of human nature, 
body and spirit, is traceable in Pindar, and 
reaches a definite conception in EKuripides. 
For instance in the Threnoi occurs the 
following interesting fragment— 


3 7 
“Ολβίᾳ δ᾽ ἅπαντος αἴσᾳ λυσίπονον τελευτάν 
καὶ σῶμα μὲν πάντων 
σθενεῖ, 
Ν 3 δι ’ A: Μ' u Ν ΄ 
ζωὸν δ᾽ ἔτι λείπεται αἰῶνος εἴδωλον: τὸ γάρ 
ἐστι μόνον 
> ΄“- ΄ Ἂς , / 3s 
ἐκ θεῶν: εὕδει δὲ πρασσόντων μελέων, ἀτὰρ 
εὑδόντεσσιν ἐν πολλοῖς ὀνείροις 
δείκνυσι τερπνῶν ἐφέρποισαν 
κρίσιν--- 


΄ /, 
ἕπεται θανάτῳ περι- 


χαλεπῶν τε 


containing a clear assertion of the antithesis 
of body and spirit, of the alternatives of 
happiness and woe in the life to come, and 
of the prophetic perception when ‘we are 
laid asleep in body and become a living soul.’ 
This last belief is also evidently alluded to 
in the next line to the passage I have already 
quoted from the Humenides, 
ἐν ἡμέρᾳ δὲ μοῖρ᾽ ἀπρόσκοπος βροτῶν, 

evidently implying that at night destiny 
unveils herself to men. In Euripides the 
belief in this duality of nature and in the 
superiority of the spiritual to the material 
essence leads towards the conclusion that 
the greater and better portion of human 
existence is what we now call death, since 
then the spiritual escapes the trammels of 
the body ; the gain of which may be argued 
from this very fact, that even the partial 
loosening of the fetters in sleep permits the 
soul to penetrate the unseen. Thus the 
natural awe that springs from the mys- 
teriousness of dreams tends to give them 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 87 


value, and to carry the mind with them 
back to the unseen from which they seem 
to spring. And that in turn gives them 
fresh importance as glimmerings and _ in- 
timations out of the spiritual world to which 
our own better selves, ‘such stuff as dreams 
are made of,’ belong, and which ‘ rounds our 
little life with sleep.’ 

To such a feeling we must ascribe the 
frequency of allusion to dreams in the plays 
of Aeschylus, and the importance he attaches 
to such visitations, 


“ lal ’ὕ 
πτεροῖς ὁπαδοῖς ὕπνου κελεύθοις. 


(d) The general condition of the Dead.— 
There is little to add to our account of the 
other world as Aeschylus shows it to us. 
It hasits own ministers of justice who carry 
out the principles of earthly equity ; its own 
stern deities, once hostile now subservient 
to the all-accomplisher Zeus Teleios, who 
in the other world works out the decrees 
that are promulgated in this: rewards and 
compensation there may be, retribution there 
assuredly is: the dead retain their earthly 
passions and attributes : they have power to 
exact from their kindred the satisfaction of 
their wrongs by troubling their peace, and 
they can make their influence felt upon the 
pious and the dutiful, as kindly δαίμονες, 
shielding from harm, and bringing peace and 
prosperity upon those who have deserved 
their goodwill. But they in turn are depen- 
dent upon the living for such poor comfort 
and peace as the nether world can give. 
Due performance of their burial rites and 
worthy veneration of their memory are essen- 
tial to securing repose and veneration among 
the shades. This is all that is revealed of 
comfort—release from bodily suffering for a 
Philoctetes— 


3 , a 
Θάνατε Παιάν, μή μ᾽ ἀτιμάσῃς μολεῖν" 
μόνος γὰρ εἶ σὺ τῶν ἀνηκέστων κακῶν 
> > ty, n 
ἰατρός, ἄλγος δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἅπτεται νεκροῦ. 


Frag. of Phil. apud Stobaewm— 


and for all rest, deep and endless and in- 
different, 
παροίχεται πόνος, 
παροίχεται δὲ τοῖσι μὲν τεθνηκόσιν 
τὸ μήποτ᾽ αὖθις μηδ᾽ ἀναστῆναι μέλειν---- 


Ag. 501, cf. Choe. 510--- 


or at best a faint reflection of the past. 

It is a gloomy conception. Aeschylus him- 
self, as Dr. Westcott points out, half inclines 
to think that a secondary positivist im- 
mortality in our children is more consolatory 
(Choe. 512). Like Homer he realized the 
nobility of our present powers, and felt in 


that intense Greek life that the fulness of 
existence is exhausted here. Here and now 
God sees and judges ; itis only the execution 
of His sentence that is sometimes delayed. 
It is enough for us to walk circumspectly 
without prying too curiously into the coun- 
sels of omnipotence. Deeply and truly re- 
ligious though Aeschylus was, his religion 
was one of terrorism, and could not fail to 
turn away thought from the future with a 
sentiment of vague alarm. He is essentially 
the prophet of the Greek drama, a religious 
reformer whom the age brought forth to 
meet the widely felt demand for something 
that should harmonize the old stories of the 
mythologers with the abstract and elevated 
ideas that began to be formed of deity. 
Orphism and the mysteries are products of 
the same movement, and indeed it is more 
than probable that Aeschylus himself fell 
under the spell of this influence. The old 
tradition that he was accused of profaning 
the mysteries by allusions in his plays is not 
so unlikely as it would at first appear. That 
he was ever actually initiated we do not 
indeed know, but his connexion with Eleusis 
makes it at least probable. And if it be 
objected that so religious-minded a man was 
not the one to be guilty of an act of pro- 
fanation, on the other hand it may be argued 
that the very intensity of his zeal was likely 
to have led him to wish to share with his 
fellowmen such salutary teaching as he might 
with his quickened discernment have gathered 
from the Eleusinian rites. Like most great 
reformers he was a little one-sided. The 
truth which it was his special mission to 
preach, he was prepared to enforce some- 
what at the expense of others almost equally 
important. And he was right. If the 
brutalizing influences of the old religion 
were to be got rid of, when man worshipped 
a reflected self, with all his own weaknesses 
and passions glorified as divine, the first 
truth to be enforced with inexorable severity 
was that of the stern and absolute majesty 
of a god of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. 
Men must realize that fact. Later philosophy 
might then teach ‘the All-wiseis the All-loving 
too,’ and certain of their own poets remind 
them that they also were His offspring. With 
such a thought men might at last venture 
to look with hope as well as dread into the 
future life, and seek to form a wider and 
more satisfying conception of its character. 
But the stern teaching of Aeschylus was 
first needful, that they might understand 
that love need not be weakness, and that 
severity to sin may prove the highest form 
of mercy. 


88 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ΠῚ: 
ΞΟΡΗΟΟΘΠΕΒ. 


And if Aeschylus is pre-eminently the 
prophet, the teacher of the Greek drama, 
Sophocles is first and foremost its supreme 
artist, the tender and refined, appealing to 
the feelings rather than to the intellect, toa 
sense of what is moving and pathetic rather 
than of what is sublime and terrible. In 
literature they stand to each other in some- 
what the same relation as Pheidias and 
Praxiteles in sculpture. Praxiteles, says 
Diodorus, portrayed in his marble τὰ τῆς 
ψυχῆς πάθη, that is, emotions, moods, feelings, 
sensations. But Pheidias deals, not with the 
πάθος, but with the ἦθος of man—his general 
abiding characteristics, what he is, not what 
he feels (cf. J. E. Harrison’s Studies in Greek 
Art). Aeschylus then is the Pheidias of 
Greek tragedy, Sophocles its Praxiteles, and 
their work respectively ἠθικός and παθητικός, 
ethical and pathetic in a limited English 
sense, and something more. And as we have 
seen in Aeschylus, this large ethic treatment 
of human nature in its subjection to law 
and its connection with the divine, evincing 
itself in a stern and uncompromising con- 
ception of the future state, so in Sophocles 
it seems @ priort probable that a more 
human sympathy with the pathos of our 
earthly life would extend over his forecast 
of ourultimate destiny its softening influence, 
and induce him to dwell on the hopeful 
rather than the melancholy aspects of our 
passage to another world. 

Asa matter of fact Sophocles does not 
dwell with insistence upon the question. ‘The 
grim traditions of the past, the gloomy 
Chthonian worship in which Aeschylus seems 
to have taken a certain stern delight, had no 
attractions for his more polished artist 
nature. With him the thought that death 
has its compensations, even if mainly negative 
ones, is frequent, while the pains and penal- 
ties of the other world are seldom alluded to. 
He is concerned not to vindicate principles 
so much as to write a perfect play, which 
shall produce in his hearers that serious 
pleasure and pleasant pain which the 
moving and the pathetic treated with the 
highest art evoke. Not that there is no 
moral purpose in the plays of Sophocles : far 
from it. But on the whole he treats his 
matter objectively, and while Aeschylus 
speaks ὧν propria persona through his 
characters, Sophocles with less inspiration 
but better art makes his characters speak 
their own thoughts. 

The plays that on the whole are most 


fruitful of the information of which we are 
in search, are the Antigone, the Ajax, and 
the Oecedipus Coloneus, in all of which the 
chief characters stand face to face with 
death—in the first two cases as the object of 
deliberate choice, in the other as the des- 
tined goal of long and weary vicissitudes. 
How then do they regard it? ‘No one,’ 
says the Chorus in the Antigone ‘is so foolish 
as to be enamoured of death,’ 220. An- 
tigone, as Prof. Jebb points out, makes a 
perfectly sane choice in meeting death, only 
because the alternative was to neglect a 
sacred duty. The utterances of this play 
ought therefore to be more weighty and un- 
biassed than those of the shame-stricken 
Ajax, eager to hide his dishonoured. head 
in night, or of the travel-worn Oedipus, 
longing for easeful death to rid him of the 
burden of a life that had been from birth 
mocked and flouted by Fate. 

Importance of Burial.—The first question 
that the Antigone raises is that of the im- 
portance to the dead of burial. When the 
decree of Creon is first mentioned, Antigone 
says that Eteocles, whom the king has 
suffered to be duly buried, is τοῖς ἔνερθεν ἔντι- 
pov νεκροῖς, a state of things which is clearly 
traceable, not to superior merit, but to his 
having secured the reverence of the dead by 
the reverence of the living. For there is a 
tendency among the nether folk, like that 
prevalent in the upper world, to trample on 
those who are down, so that those who 
neglect or refuse to perform the burial rites 
of the dead are not only found guilty of 
failing in the most sacred duties of kinship 
and nationality, but of the heartless cruelty 
of robbing the dead of all hope of honour 
and peace in Hades. 

The seriousness of such a crime is illus- 
trated by the severe sentences that were 
passed upon Athenian generals who failed to 
gather up the slain for burial, as for instance 
after Arginusae, and by the conduct of Nicias, 
who on one occasion turned back with victory 
within his grasp, on finding that the bodies 
of two Athenians had been left behind un- 
buried, preferring to forego the victory to 
wronging his dead countrymen. 


Caelum tegit qui non habet urnam, 


said the Roman poet, and Socrates reminded 
his sorrowful friends that it was not himself 
they would bury, who would be far away out 
of their reach. But in the popular Greek 
belief burial was an important event in each 
man’s existence, one on which his future 
fate largely depends. The devotion of 
Antigone was therefore animated by the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 89 - 


highest of motives, her brother’s happiness 
not in time but in eternity. Seen in this 
light, the wrangling over the body of Ajax, 
which to modern taste seems a fault in the 
construction of an otherwise fine play, is no 
longer an inti-climax but an integral part 
of the hero’s story, full of point and sig- 
nificance. 

It is evident therefore that in the view of 
Sophocles the dead are in an important 
respect dependent on the living for their 
future state. We go on to ask how far 
this is further influenced for good or evil by 
their actions in the earthly life. 

Rewards and Punishments. — ‘ Justice,’ 
says Antigone, ‘has her dwelling with the 
gods below, and ruthlessly exacts her due 
from men.’ Creon, who has retained in this 
world the dead Eteocles after he has become 
the proper subject of the nether kingdom, 
must surrender his own son Haemon— 


[Δ cal > Ν 5 4 
VEKUV VEKP@wV ἀμοιβὸν ἀντιδούς. 


But does Justice act against the dead them- 
selves? This is tacitly implied perhaps, but 
nowhere in Sophocles is it insisted upon as 
it is in Aeschylus. Indeed he introduces a 
most disturbing element into his conception 
in the justificatory influence of initiation 
into the Mysteries. In a fragment of an 
unknown play, he says 


ὡς τρισόλβιοι 
κεῖνοι βροτῶν ot ταῦτα δέρχθεντες τέλη 
μόλωσ᾽ ἐς “Avdov: τοῖσδε γὰρ μόνοις ἐκεῖ 
ζὴν ἐστί, τοῖς δ᾽ ἄλλοισι πάντ᾽ ἐκεῖ κακά. 
There is a similar statement in the Threnoi 
of Pindar. 

The Mysteries—It is now generally 
accepted as proved that the Mysteries, 
although originally mainly symbolical of the 
operations of nature, with her alternations 
of life and death, winter and summer, 
represented under the beautiful myth of 
Demeter and Kore, were further applied to 
the story of our common human destiny. 
The evidence of this from what we know of 
the rites and ceremonies of the Mysteries, 
from the study of comparative mythology, 
from vase-paintings and scattered allusions 
cannot now be entered into. But it is 
sufficiently evident that the analogy between 
the history of the corn of wheat buried out 
of sight in the dark earth only to spring up 
into an ampler and richer life, with which we 
are so familiar under St. Paul’s treatment, 
had already been seized by the Greek 
Mystics, perhaps appropriated through the 
Egyptians out of the symbolism of an ageless 
past. 


How far however the teaching connected 
with this analogy conveyed hope and conso- 
lation to the adepts we cannot say, except 
that the merits of the purifications and 
sacrifices of the ceremonies seem to be car- 
ried into the great mystery of all as justi- 
fying a right to joys and privileges beyond 
the reach of the profane multitude. But 
that the Mystae had any formulated doctrine 
of a future state is altogether doubtful. 
Indeed it is on the other hand almost 
certain that the aim of the initiation was less 
to impart definite knowledge, than to pro- 
duce a state of mind susceptible of certain 
impressions, whose character was directed by 
the scenic surroundings and dramatic charac- 
ters of the rites. Dr. Mozley in an inter- 
esting lecture on ‘Pagan Conceptions of a 
Future Life’ points out that the very fact that 
such a belief was taught suggests a want of 
real conviction. The possessor of true and 
consolatory belief would never submit to keep 
it shut up in his own soul, for true belief 
rests on our common human nature, human 
conscience and human reason. ‘The crowd’ 
he says, ‘ played with the imagery of another 
world, but it had no true place as a truth in 
their hearts; nobody lived for it; the old 
Pagan imagery was an enormous advance 
upon belief.’ 

In so far then as the Mysteries concerned 
themselves with the future life, they afford 
a further illustration of the fact that the 
Greeks as a nation believed that, whatever 
in the main might be our life here, it was 
continued or reflected beyond the grave: that 
the Mystae of Eleusis carried with them 
their exclusive holiness, and might hug 
themselves with the anticipation of the same 
vague and intangible benefits in that other 
world that accrued to them in this. Such 
a belief Sophocles shared. 

That he did not however consider it 
incompatible with an earnest conviction of 
the infallibility of divine justice, that he 
could hold such a doctrine of predestination 
at the same time that he asserted that 
Justice is essentially an infernal deity, 
proves how dim and floating all these beliefs 
were. There is a similar inconsistency in 
what he says about the fate of Polyneices. 
The dying Oedipus, with a curse whose 
binding nature would have been generally 
admitted, consigns his rebellious son in death 
to 

τὸ Ταρτάρου 
στυγνὸν πατρῷον ἔρεβο----- 


and yet the sisterly affection of Antigone has 
power to secure him peace and privilege in 


90 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Hades. That justice would not intervene to 
separate the lot of the two brothers in 
accordance with their different merits, is 
very clear. For Creon suggests to Antigone 
that Eteocles might reasonably object to 
receiving only the same honour as the 
wicked. To which Antigone replies that no 
one knows whether feuds be not made up in 
the world below, so that Polyneices might 
then think it fit and pious that Eteocles 
should be honoured. 


οὔτοι ποθ᾽ οὗχθρός, οὐδ᾽ ὅταν θάνῃ, φίλος, 


replies Creon, and he is allowed the last word. 
There would be no room or occasion for such 
feelings if Eteocles were in bliss and Poly- 
neices in a state of punishment. 

Consolatory Allusions. —We gather there- 
fore that Sophocles is in teaching less ad- 
vanced than his elder rival. But while the 
terrors of the other world are far less 
prominent with him than with Aeschylus, 
there are on the other hand not wanting 
hints that there are some aspects of death 
which are half consolatory to the suffering 
and distressed. 

The whole episode of the death of Oedipus 
at Colonus is treated with tender reverence, 
as the passing of an old blind king into peace 
from a life that had grown wearisome: and 
in clear and unequivocal terms Theseus 
forbids his children to lament— 


παύετε θρῆνον, πᾶιδες: ἐν οἷς γὰρ 
χάρις ἡ χθονία ξυναπόκειται 
πενθεῖν οὐ χρή" νέμεσις γάρ. 
0.C. 1750. 
Several passages speak of death as sleep : 
καλῶ δ᾽ ἅμα 
πομπαῖον Ἑρμῆν χθόνιον, εὖ με κοιμίσαι, Says 
Ajax before his suicide, and the same image 
occurs in 0.7. 961 and 0.C. 1577. So An- 
tigone uses the epithet παγκοίτας of Hades. 
Or again death is the saviour from all 
troubles—érikoupos τῆς λύπης, Ο.Ο΄. 1220, as 
in the prophecy to Heracles— 


μόχθων τῶν ἐφεστώτων ἐμοὶ 
λύσιν τελεῖσθαι. 
τὸ δ᾽ ἣν dp’ οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν θανεῖν ἐμέ--- 
Trach. 1171. 
And for Philoctetes and Ajax death is the 
Healer, long desired, much entreated :— 


ὦ Θάνατε, Θάνατε, πῶς ἀεὶ καλούμενος 
οὕτω κατ᾽ Hap, οὐ δύνᾳ μολεῖν ποτε ; 
Phil. 
The Survival of Human feelings and of Hu- 
man Relationships.—The passages quoted 


about the undying enmity of Polyneices and 
Eteocles have already given proof that 
human passions and relationships survive 
death. So too Oedipus, in his bitter shame 
and remorse, asks how he will be able to 
meet in Hades the father and mother he 
so foully wronged— 


ΘΈΕΙΝ, Ν 3 ΞΟ) oF / / 
eyw yap OUK οἷὸ ομμασιν ποιοις βλέπων 

i? >on AQ > ¢ , 
πάτερα TOT Gv προσειὸον εις Αιδου μολών 


οὐδ᾽ αὖ τάλαιναν μητέρα. . . ΟΣ ΠΕ ΠΕΡ 


Memory and remorse will survive therefore 
—perhaps sufficient punishment. 

But there are kindlier aspects of the same 
fact. Ismene (Ant. 65) trusts that the dead 
will see extenuating circumstances in her 
position, and Antigone is assured that the 
gratitude of her kin, which after her own 
death will irradiate with love the dark house 
of death, will be worth all her suffering-— 


καλόν μοι τοῦτο ποιόυσῃ θανεῖν. 
{A ? > aA / 7 [2 

φίλη μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ κείσομαι, φίλου μέτα, 
ὅσια πανουργήσασ᾽: ἐπεὶ πλείων χρόνος 
Δ “A a lal 
ὃν δεῖ μ᾽ ἀρέσκειν τοῖς κάτω τῶν ἐνθάδε. 
ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἀεὶ κείσομαι: σοὶ δ᾽ εἰ δοκεῖ, 

a “ ᾽ 
τὰ τῶν θεῶν ἔντιμ᾽ ἀτιμάσασ᾽ ἔχε. 

= 
Ant. T2—76. 


Most beautiful and touching of all however 
is the address of Antigone to the rock-hewn 
chamber which is to be her living tomb. 
Fully aware of all she loses, and yearning 
surely, though in silence, for Haemon’s love, 
the significant μέντοι carries the assurance οὗ 
her hope :— 


ὦ τύμβος, ὦ νυμφεῖον, ὦ κατασκαφὴς 
οἴκησις ἀείφρουρος ot πορεύομαι: 
πρὸς τοὺς ἐμαυτῆς ὧν ἀριθμὸν ἐν νεκροῖς 
a Q 

πλεῖστον δέδεκται ἸΤερσέφασι ὀλωλότων" 
ὧν Now bia’ γὼ καὶ κάκιστα δὴ μακρῷ 
κάτειμι, πρίν μοι μοῖραν ἐξήκειν βίου. 
ΕῚ “ / / 3. 59 > ΄ / 
ἐλθοῦσα μέντοι κάρτ᾽ ἐν ἐλπίσιν τρέφω 

, Ν WA , δ ‘ / 
φίλη μὲν ἥξειν πατρί, προσφιλὴς δὲ σοί, 
μῆτερ, φίλη δὲ σοί, κασίγνητον κάρ α--- 
3 Ν ie > / ε a DN 
ἐπεὶ θανόντας αὐτόχειρ ὑμᾶς ἔγω 
+ Je 3 
ἔλουσα κἀκόσμησα κἀπιτυμβίους 
χοὰς ἔδωκα. 


Ant. 891. 


And besides this compensation Prof. Jebb 
points out that Antigone dies with the 
belief that the question which the poet has 
left unanswered as to her personal guilt, 
ὅσια πανουργήσασα, Will in the other world 
be solved— 

ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν οὖν τάδ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐν θεοῖς καλά, 

παθόντες ἂν ξυγγνοῖμεν ἡμαρτηκότες-- 

Ant. 925-6. 


The gods have let her die for obedience to 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 91 


their unwritten laws, and the why, that has 
tortured many a soul since hers, goes with 
her for its answer into the tomb. 

There is this undertone of melancholy 
running throughout the plays of Sophocles, 
and if he dwells somewhat fervently upon 
the rest, the healing, the reunion in the 
other world, it is less from a strong appreci- 
ation of these joys as such than from a 
sense of the struggles, the suffering, the 
separations of our life here, which force us 
to ery aloud on death for comfort. Such 
happiness as it can offer us is after all only 
relative. To the prosperous and contented 
death has nothing to offer. It is the cold 
dreariness of night: but if we are only 
longing to be asleep, what matter ? 


ἹΠΠῸ 
EURIPIDES. 


And what of Euripides—the realist, the 
philosopher, or rather perhaps the sophist, 
the sceptic, the disciple of Anaxagoras, the 
friend of Socrates? Far from avoiding the 
question of our future destiny, that is just 
the kind of speculation that fascinates him. 
The fragments of his lost plays alone are 
full of allusions to it, and in most of those 
passages there is a real earnestness that does 
not always characterize his philosophical 
disquisitions. Many of them remind us of 
Socrates, the δεινὸς σοφιστής, to whom he 
seems to allude in the Hippolytus, and 
though Euripides does not seem to have 
been actually his disciple, there can be little 
doubt that as his friend he was conversant 
with most of his teaching. For instance: 


΄ 3. ἐπί, 2 9A Af? a 7, a 
τίς δ᾽ οἶδεν εἰ ζὴν τοῦθ᾽ ὃ κέκληται θανεῖν 

Ν lel x / > , ie) c al Lal 
τὸ ζῆν δὲ θνήσκειν ἐστί, πλῆν ὁμῶς βροτῶν 

a ε 4 ε Ἄν ἐπὶ / 

νοσοῦσιν ot βλέποντες, οἱ δ᾽ ὀλωλότες 

3 Ν “- 3 Ν ’ 7, 
οὐδὲν νοσοῦσιν οὐδὲ κέκτηνται κακά. 


Frag. 967. 


Socrates’ last words to his judges might 
paraphrase the earlier part of the passage, 
and the thought that seems to lie behind 
his reminder to Crito of the debt to pay the 
god of healing is parallel to the latter part. 
So too there are echoes of the great teacher’s 
saying, Bios μελέτη θανάτου, Which must have 
haunted Euripides’ mind, so often does he 
revert to the thought of death. In a 
fragment of the Alewandros he says : 


4, Ν A 
πάντων τὸ θανεῖν: τὸ δὲ κοινὸν ἄχθος 
μετρίως ἀλγεῖν σοφία μελετᾷ. 


Cicero, in his Third Tusculan, chap. xiv., 


translates a lost passage of Euripides, where 
Theseus says that, in obedience to the pre- 
cepts of some philosophers, he constantly 
meditated on death and other possible forms 
of evil, so that if any disaster should 
suddenly befall him he might not be over- 
whelmed by the unexpected blow. On which 
Cicero makes the following comment : ‘Quod 
autem Theseus a docto se audisse dicit, id de 
se ipso loquitur Euripides. Fuerat enim 
auditor Anaxagorae, quem ferunt nunciata 
morte filio dixisse, “Sciebam me genuisse 
mortalem.’’ Quae vox declarat iis esse haec 
acerba, quibus non fuerint cogitata.’ That 
knowledge, if we could but attain to it, of 
our future state would have an appreciable 
influence upon our actions, he fully believed ; 
half our foolishness and error and ‘ lovesick 
fondness’ for our present life being due to 
our ignorance of it. 


πᾶς δ᾽ ὀδυνηρὸς Bios ἀνθρώπων 
κοὐκ ἔστι πόνων ἀνάπαυσις" 
ἀλλ᾽ ὅ τι τοῦ ζὴν φίλτερον ἄλλο 
σκότος ἀμπίσχων κρύπτει νεφέλαις. 
δυσέρωτες δὴ φαινόμεθ᾽ ὄντες 
τοῦδ᾽ ὅτι τοῦτο στίλβει κατὰ γῆν 
du ἀπειροσύναν ἄλλου βιότου 
κοὺκ ἀπόδειξιν τῶν ὑπὸ γαίας" 
μύθοις δ᾽ ἄλλως φερόμεσθα. 
Hipp. 190—197. 


The last words are significant. The old 
traditions and explanations are μῦθοι, and 
the mystery remains. His position is 
agnostic ; but not, as is so often the case, 
with the half-conviction that not only can 
we know nothing, but that there is nothing 
to know. Rather that the best part of all 
knowledge lies behind the veil, the privilege 
of the spiritual self that will at last penetrate 
reality :— 


\ gn en, A A 29 , 
τὸ ζὴν γὰρ ἴσμεν: τοῦ θανεῖν δ᾽ ἀπειρίᾳ 
πᾶς τις φοβεῖται φῶς λιπεῖν τόδ᾽ ἡλίου. 


Traces of Orphism.— Some writers have 
expended much learning in attempts to 
prove the presence of Orphism in the plays 
of Aeschylus and Euripides. The amount 
of truth however in the statement is of the 
kind continually exaggerated by writers 
with a hobby. The teaching of Orphism 
was not, like that of the Mysteries, confined 
to the initiated, and might therefore with 
its pantheism, its doctrine of metempsy- 
chosis, its exaltation of a life of ascetic 
purity, well have had attractions for minds 
like those of Aeschylus and Euripides eager 
in search of something that should remedy 
the spiritual poverty of the national religion, 


93 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


and ready to assimilate floating elements of 
truth from whatever source they sprang. 
But to say that Aeschylus and Euripides 
were Orphists would assuredly be beside the 

mark. Each appropriated from Orphism 
what answered the special craving of his 
mind, and let the rest go by. There is 
in Aeschylus no trace of pantheism—on the 
contrary, he was a polytheist nominally, 
practically a monotheist—no trace of a 
doctrine οὗ metempsychosis. But the Orphic 
spirit is there, the deep reverence for the 
unseen powers, the love of purity and right- 
eousness for their own sake, the penetrating 
enthusiasm, that were the notes of its 
presence. 

It is something quite different that at- 
tracts Euripides. It is the ascetic separa- 
tism of mystic cults in which his proud 
disdain of the mob finds satisfaction ; and 
the purity of body and soul that Artemis 
loves in the young Hippolytus typifies 
perhaps half-unconsciously to the sceptic 
poet the purity of heart that gives insight 
into the mysteries he longed to probe. 

These things Euripides doubtless found 
attractive in the purer forms of Orphism. 
But his was a mind that could satisfy itself 
with the whole of no fixed belief of his 
times. There is in him none of the longing 
of the essentially pious Sophocles for 
confidence and devotion. It is in Sophocles 
and Aeschylus that we find the real Greek 
religion, ‘tantum quae potuit suadere ma- 
lorum,’ glorified by the first rays of the 
rising sun of philosophy. But Euripides 
parted with it to share with Socrates and 
Plato a longing to give voice to the common 
aspirations of humanity, prompted by the 
spirit of enquiry so strong upon that age 
to throw away the acquiescence and timidity, 
if not indifference, of the past, and to seek 
an explanation of the individual in the uni- 
versal, of man in God, and of the present 
life in the life to come. 

Influence of Philosophy.—Wonder, says 
Aristotle, is at the bottom of all philosophy. 
And so when under the guidance of Pro- 
tagoras and of all the greater Sophists, 
including Socrates himself, the attention of 
the thoughtful came to be concentrated upon 
man himself, as the only object in this 
world of fleeting phenomena which can be 
studied with some advantage in the attain- 
ment of truth, the feeling of wonder and 
admiration at ourselves, so secretly and 
wonderfully made, imperceptibly grows into 
the timid belief that the great Demiourgos 
did not mean his highest work merely for 
swift destruction. And the pupil of Anax- 


agoras who had talked with Socrates must 
have been led to the deduction from his 
master’s teaching which his master himself 
did not perceive—that, with his hypothesis of 
mind governing the world, all things must 
be directed εἰς τὰ ἄριστα :— 


> , lal > ‘\ > os / 
ει θεοί τι δρῶσιν αισχρον OUK εἰσιν θεοί, 


he says. If therefore other laws, of which 
we have no knowledge, do not intervene, 
there is a reasonable probability that some- 
how good will be the final goal of ill, if not 
in this life, in another. 

‘ Euripide excelle surtout 4 troubler,’ says 
M. Jules Girard, and Robert Browning testi- 
fies to the same when he speaks of the many 
unsuspected temptations to faith that will 
trouble the most comfortable atheism, just 
as doubts will trouble faith :— 


‘And now what are we? unbelievers both. 

Where’s the gain? . 

Just when we are ey theres! a ἘΠΕ: 
touch, 

A fancy from a flower-bell, some one’s 
death, 

A chorus-ending from Euripides.— 

And that’s enough for fifty hopes and fears 

As old and new at once, as nature’s self, 

To rap and knock and enter in our soul, 

Take hands and dance there, a fantastic 
ring 

Round the ancient idol, on his base again, 

The grand Perhaps.’ 


Was it this that made Aristotle call him 
the most tragic of the poets, that strong 
appeal for ‘more light’ which Clement of 
Alexandria has preserved from some lost 
play ἴ-- 

πέμψον μὲν φῶς ψυχᾶς ἀνέρων 
τοῖς βουλομένοις ἄθλους προμαθεῖν 
πόθεν ἔβλαστον, τίς ῥίζα κακῶν, 
τίνα δεῖ μακάρων ἐκθυσαμένοις 
εὑρεῖν μόχθων ἀνάπαυλαν. 


In spite of Aristophanes and of those who 
condemned Socrates, the sceptism of Euri- 
pides and of Socrates was latent in the 
minds of most of their contemporaries. The 
well-known stories of the popularity of 
Euripides are sufficient proof that his voice 
awoke an answering note in the hearts of his 
audience. Sophocles himself, says Aristotle, 
said that while he described things as they 
ought to be, Euripides described things as 
they are ; and Sophocles no doubt thought 
that the Athenians ought to have worshipped 
with quiet confidence and submission the 
gods of their fathers, leaving the mysteries 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 93 


of life and death in their hands. But 
in very deed they were, as Euripides divined 
them, deep in their hearts troubled and in 
doubt. Their very wrath with those who 
gave voice to their trouble was only the last 
effort of religious conscientiousness to stifle 
the over-mastering impulse within. Those 
who condemned Socrates of speaking blas- 
phemously were themselves uttering the 
cynical ‘What is truth?’ 

lt follows that the allusions to the after- 
state in Euripides, though frequent, are 
vague and conjectural. Sometimes, for the 
purposes of his play, he makes use of the 
traditional imagery and legend ; sometimes 
he openly rejects them as μῦθοι. He does 
not introduce apparitions of the dead or 
demon-phantoms. The Erinnyes seen by 
his Orestes are evidently the products of 
a distempered brain, and the eidolon of 
Polydorus, which appears in order to speak 
the prologue to the Hecuba, is only a piece 
of stage-machinery. We may take, as an 
example of his treatment, the play of 
Alcestis. 

Alcestis—The idea of redemption from 
death by the voluntary substitution of 
another person is not without parallel else- 
where in Greek legend. There is, for 
example, the sharing of immortality and 
death between the Dioscuri and the re- 
demption of Prometheus from Tartarus by 
Cheiron in the Prometheus Unbound. But 
it is hardly necessary to say that Euripides 
did not believe, any more than the Hebrew 
poet, that man could release his brother’s 
soul from death, or make agreement unto 
God for him. He treats the story as we 
should, as a beautiful fable, illustrative of 
wifely devotion and love that conquers 
death, and as a convenient vehicle for what 
is to us the less interesting motive, though 
the more important one in intention—that 
an unselfish regard for the duties of hospi- 
tality and of the obligations to noble self- 
restraint is not in time without its own 
rewards. Thanatos is a purely allegorical 
figure, not exactly answering to any of the 
Chthonian deities, just as the restoration to 
life of Alcestis is treated symbolically by 
the contest between Thanatos and Heracles. 

Again the dying wife sees in fancy all 
that Greek imagination had figured of the 
under-world : the two-oared bark ; the ferry- 
man of the dead, his hand upon the oar ; 
winged Hades himself, with burning eyes 
that frown darkly at her under his beetling 
brows. But the poet is only putting into 
her mouth the expressions appropriate to 
the long-past age to which his heroine may 


be supposed to belong: they did not repre- 
sent any belief of his own or his audience. 
Aristophanes might parody the same old 
fables without fear of censure in his Frogs. 
Euripides has distinctly said that we know 
not the meaning of this glittering bauble 
life, much less of what comes after. ‘Sleep, 
rest, and peace are all we know of death’ 
might translate many a passage in his 
plays. 

The poet does not permit Alcestis herself 
any soothing prevision of recompense for 
her heroism ; but three times the Chorus— 
who on the whole may be supposed to speak 
for Euripides—venture a conjectural hope 
that her lot in Hades may be made worthy 
her deserts :— 

ΔῊΝ. εἰ δέ τι κἀκεῖ 
πλέον ἐστ᾽ ἀγαθοῖς, τούτων μετέχουσ᾽ 


ἽΑιδου νύμφῃ παρεδρεύοις. 


Nay, they half canonize Alcestis, bidding 
Admetus to honour her tomb, not with the 
customary melancholy rites, but as the altar 
of a goddess :— 


4 Ν + =) Be) Ν 
αὕὗτα ποτὲ προύθαν᾽ ἀνδρὸς 
~ > 
νῦν δ᾽ ἐστὶ μάκαιρα δαίμων. 
nA? ὦ 7 > Ν if 
χαῖρ, ὦ ποτνί᾽, εὖ δὲ δοίης. 


And what of consolation for Admetus ? 
That she will prepare a mansion where he 
may join her :— 


> aA 35 ὦ 
ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ἐκεῖσε προσδόκα μ᾽ ὅταν θάνω 
r 3 2 
καὶ δῶμ᾽ ἑτοίμαζ᾽, ὡς συνοικήσουσά μοι,--- 


a reunion which his own funeral shall 
symbolize, laying him to rest beside her :— 


>. “ 3 - Τὰ ΘΠ , “ὃ 

ἐν ταῖσιν αὐταῖς γάρ μ᾽ ἐπισκήψω κέδροις 
~~ -ὰ 4 

σοὶ τούσδε θεῖναι πλευρά τ᾽ ἐκτεῖναι πέλας 

πλευροῖσι τοῖς σοῖς. 


In the meantime, while Admetus remains 
to drag out a weary existence, παρεὶς τὸ 
μόρσιμον, ‘her sorrow shall in no wise touch 
any more; she has ceased from troubles, 
fair-famed for ever.’ 

This is the grain of comfort, limited, alas! 
by many an if. Euripides however, we are 
fain to believe, leant like Socrates towards 
hope. The end presented itself to him, as 
to Socrates, as offering two alternatives, 
and the apparent contradictions of some 
of his utterances are due to this. A con- 
ception of the Deity as absolute good, 
consciousness of capabilities only half re- 
alized, of the far-away mysteriousness of 
God, τὸν πάνθ᾽ ὁρῶντα καὐτὸν οὐχ ὁρώμενον, 
of man himself —‘animus ut Euripides 
dicere audet deus est,’ says Cicero (Zusc. 


94 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


I. 26)—all this at times inclined him to 
the thought that death may after all be 
the better part of existence. But again the 
weariness and sorrows of this life, its con- 
tradictions and its failures, pressed in with 
stern insistence, and it was enough that 
death should end the pain and wretchedness 
in sleep dreamless and eternal :— 


/ Ν 3 ’ / i 
θάνατος yap ἀνθρώποισι νεικέων τέλος 
3, ’, Ν AQ? > \ a 5 A 
ἔχει: τί yap τοῦδ᾽ ἐστὶ μεῖζον ἐν βροτοῖς ; 
τίς γὰρ πετραῖον σκόπελον οὐτάζων δορὶ 
58 / 4 3.95 ΄ 4 
ὀδύναισι δώσει ; Tis δ᾽ ἀτιμάζων νέκυς, 
εἰ μηδὲν αἰσθάνοιτο τῶν παθημάτων ; 


Frag. of an Antigone. 


In this mood he said in the Cresphontes 
that we should not, 85. we do, celebrate 
birth with thanksgiving and death with 
mourning. Rather should we mourn when 
a child is born into this world, pondering 
on all the sorrows of our human life; but 
when another has ended all these cruel 
hardships in death, then with praise and 
joyfulness should his friends escort him 
forth upon his way (Cic. Zusc. I. 48). At 
another time, in his bitterness and disgust, 
he is ready to be rid of humanity alto- 
gether :— 


Ν ἴω S A Ν Ν Lal > Ν 
τοὺς ζῶντας εὖ δρᾶν: κατθανὼν δὲ πᾶς ἀνὴρ 
γῆ καὶ σκιά: τὸ μηδὲν εἰς οὐδὲν ῥέπει--- 


Dust and shadow, potential nothingness in 
life, actual nothingness in death. Our 
enemies can harm us no more, our friends 
forget us eqrally :— 


τύμβῳ yap οὐδεὶς πιστὸς ἀνθρώπων pitos— 
Frag. incert. Fab. 


just as we forget the dead in enjoying the 
inheritance they have left us :— 


TO yap ἔχειν πλέον κρατεῖ 
τῆς εὐσεβείας: ἡ δ᾽ ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς χάρις 
5 / ? Ψ 5 / 3 
ἀπόλωλ᾽, ὅταν τις ἐκ δόμων ἔλθῃ. 


Ibid. 


Only their works remain to keep green the 
memory of the just; this immortality at 
least is theirs :— 


ἀρετὴ δὲ κἂν θάνῃ τις οὐκ ἀπόλλυται, 
- > 5 a 

ζῇ δ᾽ οὐκετ᾽ ὄντος σῶματος" κακοῖσι δὲ 

A “ἅμ / ae Ν ’ 

ἅπαντα φροῦδα συνθάνονθ᾽ ὑπὸ χθονός. 


Frag. 
Still, in his gloomiest mood Euripides would 


have us remember that if we know not good, 
neither do we know evil—our ignorance is 


absolute. Nothing remains for us but to 
cultivate a philosophic spirit in face of this 
inevitable mystery. Life is ours to make 
the best of it, whatever comes after, and if 
death is part of the course of nature, a 
harvesting of ripe fruit, there is at least 
that presumption that it is somehow for 
the best :— 


4 Ν > ν᾽ Ὁ 3 a a 
ἔφυ μὲν οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐ πονεῖ βροτῶν" 
θάπτει τε τέκνα χἄτερ᾽ αὖ κτᾶται νέα, 

3 / / Ἂς sO?» A 
αὐτός τε θνήσκει. καὶ τάδ᾽ ἄχθονται βροτοὶ 

“ an 3 

εἰς γῆν φέροντες γῆν" ἀναγκαίως δ᾽ ἔχει 
βίον θέριζειν ὥστε κάρπιμον στάχυν, 
καὶ τὸν μὲν εἶναι, τὸν δὲ μή: τί ταῦτα δεῖ 
στένειν ἅπερ δεῖ κατὰ φύσιν διεκπερᾶν ; 
δεινὸν γὰρ οὐδὲν τῶν ἀναγκαίων βροτοῖς. 


Frag. Hypsipyle. 


This is what the tragedians leave with 
us: Aeschylus, his trumpet-note of judg- 
ment ; Sophocles, his tenderer words of rest 
and reunion; Euripides, his troubled ques- 
tioning, his sceptic silence, his half-con- 
temptuous calm. Between the birth of 
Aeschylus and the death of Euripides most 
of the great things of the Athenian empire 
are comprised, and when Euripides died the 
turmoil and distress of the later years of 
the Peloponnesian war was fast closing in 
the political horizon, and thrusting men’s 
thoughts back upon themselves. And as 
the soldiers of Plataea could not but feel 
the value of life and action, and the citizen 
of the Athens of Pericles and Pheidias could 
not but feel the value of human _ per- 
sonality (πολλὰ τὰ δεινὰ κοὐδὲν ἀνθρώπου 
δεινότερον πέλει), So the poet who had out- 
lived the disasters of Syracuse, and had 
heard how the Odes that had been written 
to delight the gay leisure of the free proud 
sons of Athens had come to be the solace 
and alleviation of slavery and imprisonment, 
could not but have felt something of the 
vanity of life and of human achievement, 
and have asked more eagerly than his 
compeers, What lies beyond ? 

There is at the British Museum a beautiful 
Graeco-Roman bronze head of Sleep or her 
twin Death. The parted hair, the dove-like 
wings over the delicate ears, the eyelids that 
droop low over the languid eyes, the small 
straight nose, the close quiet mouth and 
firm chin—all breathe an indescribable air 
of gravity and reticence and calm, which 
seem to say that this is the last and 
crowning experience of all, that this is the 
secret of all secrets, which when we have 
fathomed, we have fathomed all. And we 
stand before her, each with his separate 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 95 


puzzle, his own vexed thoughts, his bafiled 
questionings, his blank misgivings. She 
could give each his answer, but she will 
not speak for all our entreaties—not yet. 


There in bronze is the Greek thought of 
Death. Volumes about it could tell us no 
more. 

Maup M. Danre.. 


POLITICAL ALLUSIONS IN THE SUPPLICES OF EURIPIDES. 


Or the three great tragic poets of Athens 
Euripides most concerns himself with the 
political questions of the time. The Hercules 
Furens, the Heraclidae, the [on all show this 
tendency to some extent, but of all Euripides’ 
plays the Swpplices is undoubtedly the most 
political. The disaster at Delium in 424 B.c. 
and the refusal of the Thebans contrary to 
Greek religious custom to give up the bodies 
of the dead manifestly suggested the theme 
of the play. Unfortunately no ancient 
authority gives us the date of its production, 
and the opinions of modern writers vary. 
The majority place it somewhere between 
422 and 417 B.c.: some as late as 410. 
Hermann suggested that as the play so 
manifestly supports the Argive alliance it 
was produced before the Argive ambassadors 
in 420. Various passages in the play have 
been understood by various writers to apply 
to eminent Athenian politicians of the day. 
Wilamowitz-Mollendorf and others consider 
it practically a party pamphlet in the 
interest of Alcibiades. But the passages 
which have been referred to are too isolated 
to clearly prove the poet’s political intention. 
The most important and most certain proof 
these writers have one and all passed over. 
It is contained in the long panegyric of 
Adrastus delivered over the bodies of the 
fallen chiefs (857 ff.). 

The first of the heroes whom Adrastus 
describes is Capaneus who had died before 
the walls of Thebes ‘by the visitation of 
God.’ Aeschylus (Septem ὁ. Thebas 422) 
describes how Capaneus declared that he 
would take the city and defied Heaven to 
prevent him. Euripides repeats the passage 
almost verbatim (498) ὥμοσεν πόλιν | πέρσειν, 
θεοῦ θέλοντος ἦν τε μὴ θέλῃς. To the Greek 
mind, the death of Capaneus by lightning 
was the natural result of such presumptuous 
sin. It is consequently with some astonish- 
ment we see that in Adrastus’ account of 
the chieftains, although the original story of 
the death of Capaneus by lightning is kept, 
still his character is represented as all that 
is good and amiable. Of the haughty Ca- 
paneus braving in his pride the wrath of 


Heaven we read (862) φρόνημα δὲ | οὐδέν τι 
μεῖζον εἶχεν ἢ πένης ἀνήρ and again (869) 
ἄψευδες ἦθος, εὐπροσήγορον στόμα. 

The editors explain this glaring inconsist- 
ency by the plea that the words are in the 
mouth of a friend, and that the cause of 
Adrastus was bound up with his deceased 
allies. But this did not prevent Adrastus 
saying before (160) νέων yap ἀνδρῶν θόρυβος 
ἐξέπλησσέ pe. Nor is Theseus anywhere 
in the play inclined to palliate the conduct of 
the Seven although he feels himself bound in 
the interests of Greek religion to demand 
the bodies for the Suppliants at the altar of 
Demeter. 

It might also be urged that the poet 
desired to lend some novelty to his treatment 
of the subject which, as Plutarch (Theseus ¢. 
29) tells us, had already been handled by 
Aeschylus in his Lleusinians. It is not 
without reason that Aristophanes makes 
Euripides the claimant of the throne of 
Aeschylus in the lower world. Not a few 
times he goes out of his way to show his 
rivalry with Aeschylus. In this very play 
the speech of Theseus (195 ff.) is obviously 
modelled on and meant to rival the speech 
of Prometheus in Aeschylus’ play of that 
name (P. V. 442 ff.). We learn from 
Plutarch that in the Hleusinians Aeschylus 
made the bodies be given up to Theseus after 
peaceable negotiation and without the battle 
which Euripides introduces. But as Euripi- 
des followed Aeschylus earlier in the play in 
his account of Capaneus, and as there is no 
reason to doubt the authenticity of that pas- 
sage, there must be some other reason for his 
inconsistency with himself. That reason can 
only be that he wished to draw under the 
guise of the Argive chieftains the political 
chieftains of Athens. 

The only editor, so far as I know, who 
has seen this is Musgrave. , His words are 
...puto poetam in ducibus Argivis laudandis 
nobilium quorundam Atheniensium vitam et 
mores effinaisse. Quare non est adeo mirandum 
si receptam de veteribus ils opinionem non 
anxie ubique secutus est. But Musgrave 
made no attempt to work out the matter in 


90 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


detail. When once, however, the speech is 
looked at from this point of view it is com- 
paratively easy to see who are the characters 
depicted. No doubt the youthful citizens 
to whom Adrastus is requested by Theseus 
to tell the names and characters of his 
comrades recognised with little trouble the 
politicians whom the Argive leaders were 
intended to represent. 

(i.) The irreligious Capaneus is metamor- 
phosed into the god-fearing Nikias, ᾧ Bios 
μὲν ἣν πολὺς | ἥκιστα δ᾽ ὄλβῳ γαῦρος ἣν (861). 
The wealth of Nikias was proverbial not 
only among his own contemporaries (Lysias, 
xix. 47, says his property was estimated at a 
hundred talents) but also in much later 
times (Athenaeus, vi. 2726 τῶν Ἑλλήνων 
ζάπλουτος Νίκιας). Cp. also Plut. Wik. xv. 2 
τοῦ δὲ Νικίου καὶ διὰ τἄλλα μέγας ἣν καὶ διὰ 
τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ διὰ τὴν δόξαν ὃ ὄγκος. 
Plutarch’s character of Nikias is somewhat 
inconsistent with itself. As it is stated in 
il. 3 it agrees admirably with the portrait 
here—xat γὰρ οὐκ ἣν αὐστηρὸν οὐδ᾽ ἐπαχθὲς 
ἄγαν αὐτοῦ τὸ σεμνόν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐλαβείᾳ τινὶ 
μεμιγμένον αὐτῷ τῷ δεδιέναι δοκοῦντι τοὺς πολλοὺς 
δημαγωγοῦν. A poet who, as we shall see, was 
a more or less ardent sympathiser with the 
aims of Nikias, was not likely to dwell upon 
his weak points nor indeed, as we can see 
from his unhappy future history, were these 
so evident to his contemporaries as they have 
been to posterity. In any case it is hard to 
reconcile the passage given above with the 
statement (v. 4) that he was φίλοις οὐ προση- 
νὴς οὐδ᾽ ἡδύς K.T.A. Or With xi. 2 Νικίαν ὃ τε 
πλοῦτος ἐπίφθονον ἐποίει καὶ μάλιστα τῆς διαίτης 
τὸ μὴ φιλάνθρωπον μηδὲ δημοτικὸν ἀλλ᾽ ἄμικτον 
καὶ ὀλιγαρχικὸν ἀλλόκοτον ἐδόκε. Nor are 
these latter passages reconcilable with the 
statement (11. 2) τὸν δῆμον εἶχεν εὔνουν καὶ συμ- 
φιλοτιμούμενον---ὃ, statement which is indis- 
putably true. Of no one could it be said 
more truly than of Nikias ἄκραντον οὐδὲν 
οὔτ᾽ ἐς οἰκέτας ἔχων οὔτ᾽ ἐς πολίτας (870). 

(ii.) The Athenian who is represented by 
Eteoclus is equally easy to discover. The 
characteristic on which Euripides dwells is 
the poverty of the hero and his stern inde- 
pendence. One of the leading men of the time 
had precisely the same characteristics. 
Plutarch (Nikias, xv. 1) tells us that Lama- 
chus was a brave and honest man (jv μὲν 
ἀνδρωδὴς καὶ δίκαιος ἀνήρ) but so poor that he 
had always in his accounts to debit to the 
Athenians a small sum for clothes and shoes. 
We are told in the life of Alcibiades by the 
same writer that owing to his poverty he 
had not the influence he deserved (Alcib. 21). 
Aristophanes in Lamachus’ life-time loved to 


represent him as a swashbuckler and a sort 
of Captain Bobadil, but generously sang his 
praises after he had met his death in the 
service of his country (Zhesmoph. 841, Ranae, 
1039). 

(111.) Hippomedon, the chief who ‘scorns 
delights and lives laborious days’ in his 
desire to serve his country, seems to me to 
be Demosthenes, perhaps the greatest of 
all Athenian generals. Unfortunately no 
full account of him is preserved to us. He 
seems to have been a man of war from his 
youth and to have taken no direct interest 
in politics. In Aristophanes he appears only 
in the Hquites as οἰκέτης A. Thucydides 
seems to think he needs no introduction to 
his readers, at any rate no special attention is 
drawn to his appearance on the political 
stage. 

(iv.) The antitype of the next hero— 
Parthenopaeus the son of Atalante—is plain 
to all eyes. To only one Athenian of 
Euripides’ time could the words Παρθενοπαῖος, 
εἶδος ἐξοχώτατος and πολλοὺς δ᾽ ἐραστάς κἀπὸ 
θηλειῶν *6 παῖς" 1 ἔχων ἐφρούρει μηδὲν ἐξαμαρ- 
τάνειν apply—to Alcibiades. The verses 899, 
900 coming at the end of the character 
seem thrown in as an afterthought of the 
poet in order to make identification absolutely 
certain. How true they were to Alcibiades’ 
character may be seen by comparing Xen. 
Memorab. i. 2, 24 and Thue. vi. 15. Aleci- 
biades was just entering on his political 
career ; there had been an attempt to snub 
him, but he had successfully revenged that 
and had suddenly found himself the author 
of a policy at least partially adopted by 
Athens. He would have been considered 
very young for a politician in any other 
state, says Thucydides (v. 43, 2). Are the 
lines λυπηρὸς οὐκ ἣν οὐδ᾽ ἐπίφθονος πόλει | οὐδ᾽ 
ἐξεριστὴς τῶν λόγων κιτιλ. (all of which 
Alcibiades already was or soon became) a 
gentle hint from the poet of conduct which 
his well-wishers and his country might think 
it well he should amend ? 

(v.) In the account of Tydeus there exists 
a very serious textual difficulty, Something 
has been lost after δεινὸς σοφιστής, or some- 
thing has been interpolated ; perhaps there 
have been both loss and interpolation. But 
the lines that remain give an excellent clue 
to the personage meant by the poet. The 
historical character must be the beauw-idéal 
of the courageous warrior; he must bea man 
of deeds not arguments, οὐκ ἐν λόγοις ἣν λαμ- 
πρὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀσπίδι δεινὸς σοφιστής. Fortu- 
nately we have an account of such an 


1 Emendation of Wilamowitz (Hermes, xiv. 181) 
for the unintelligible ὅσας of MSS. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. om 


Athenian preserved to us by Plato. It is 
Laches. Τὸ both Euripides and Plato one 
person has acted as the exemplar of εὐανδρία. 
Plato sketches exactly the same bluff rude 
soldier as Euripides. Laches knows his own 
defects, as he tells us in his account of 
Socrates (188 E), Σωκράτους δ᾽ ἐγὼ τῶν μὲν 
λόγων οὐκ ἔμπειρός εἰμι, ἀλλὰ πρότερον, ὡς 
ἔοικε, τῶν ἔργων ἐπειράθην (cp. also 194 ΑἹ: 
πρότερον refers to the battle οἵ Delium (181 
B), at which Socrates showed his superiority 
in bravery even to Laches himself with whom 
he retired from the field (Plato Symposium 
221 A). 

This completes the list of heroes who have 
a funeral oration pronounced over them. 
Amphiaraus had been swallowed up by the 
earth and Polyneices’ corpse had been left at 
Thebes. Hence they are passed over with 
three lines each and these from Theseus not 
Adrastus. Nor is there any attempt to 
delineate their characters. 

The list of persons mentioned strongly 
supports Hermann’s date for the play. Of 
the five Athenians described—Nikias, Lama- 
chus, Demosthenes, Alcibiades, Laches—all 
except Alcibiades had sworn to the treaty of 
Nikias in the previous year (Thue. v. 19) and 
they are indisputably the best known person- 
ages among the Athenian deputies who 
were present on that occasion. It was since 
that treaty that Alcibiades’ star had risen. 
Before that treaty he had been regarded by 
the Spartans as a person of no consequence ; 
he was now at the head of the most influen- 
tial’party in Athens. No wonder then that, 
with those traits of character which had 
already shown themselves in him, the poet 
should warn him against his besetting sins. 

When this, the most important passage 
politically in the play, has been set in its 
proper light, the political allusions scattered 
elsewhere throughout the play appear in their 
correct relations, and the whole purpose of 
the drama is made clearer. Euripides’ aim 
is universal peace. The poet feels that men 
ought to heal their differences by milder 
remedies than the sword— κενοὶ βροτῶν | 
οἱ τόξον ἐντείνοντες ὡς καιροῦ πέρα, | καὶ πρὸς 
δίκης γε πολλὰ πάσχοντες κακά, | φίλοις μὲν οὐ 
πείθεσθε, τοῖς δὲ πράγμασι, | πόλεις τ΄, ἔχουσαι 
διὰ λόγου κάμψαι κακά, | φόνῳ καθαιρεῖσθ᾽. οὐ 
λόγῳ, τὰ πράγματα (144 ff.). Let there be 
a treaty with Argos by all means, but that 
need not entail a war with Sparta. This 
was, as we learn from Thucydides, the gene- 
ral feelin of the Athenians on the subject 
(Thue. v. 48, 1 αἱ μὲν σπονδκὶ καὶ at ξυμμαχίαι 
οὕτως ἐγένοντο καὶ at τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ 
᾿Αθηναίων οὐκ ἀπείρηντο τούτου ἕνεκα οὐδ᾽ ὑφ᾽ 

ΝΟ. XXXI. VOL. IV. 


ἑτέρων). This is supported also by the care- 
ful avoidance of anything which might 
offend Sparta unnecessarily. The only direct 
reference of any kind (187) Σπαρτὴ μὲν ὠμὴ 
καὶ πεποίκιλται τρόπους iS in a passage part 


of which is certainly spurious. Dindorf 
brackets vv. 180 to 192. All editors are 
agreed that vv. 180—183 are spurious. 


Kirchhoff and Nauck bracket also vv. 190 
—192, which some have taken for a pane- 
gyric of Alcibiades. The poet’s feelings 
and those of his audience must have been 
different on this occasion to those they 
entertained at the production of the Andro- 
mache. The passage in the Andromache (445 
—463) beginning ὦ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποισιν ἔχθιστοι 
βροτῶν | Ξπάρτης ἔνοικοι gives a list of the 
failings of Sparta which reminds one of the 
views expressed by the Athenians in the 
Melian dialogue. Even if the solitary verse 
in this play be kept it might be looked upon 
as a sight hint of the irritation the Atheni- 
ans were feeling because Sparta had 
not coerced her allies into peace and had 
not compelled the Thebans to surrender 
Panactum. 

But if Euripides’ desire was for peace he 
could not have been a thorough supporter of 
Alcibiades. Here therefore ἢ must dissent 
from the conclusions drawn by Wilamowitz- 
Mollendorf (Analecta Euripidea p. 179).1 He 
there points out that Aristophanes, however 
merciless to Euripides’ earlier and later plays, 
heaps none of his contumely on the cycle of 
political plays—the Hercules Furens, Heracli- 
dae, Cresphontes, Erechtheus, Supplices, Ion— 
which he assigns with great probability to 
the middle of the poet’s career. He therefore 
argues that the reason for this must be that 
at this period both poets were fighting on the 
same side. That side he considers to have 
been the side of Alcibiades. There is however 
no proof that either poet was a partisan of 
Alcibiades. Aristophanes whose every de- 
sire is peace at any price could hardly be so. 
Neither could Euripides with the sentiments 
he develops in this play. The party which 
he favours is very clearly indicated (244 f.) 
τριῶν δὲ μοιρῶν ἡ ᾽ν μέσῳ σῴζει πόλεις κόσμον 

1 Since this paper was in the hands of the editor 
I have had an opportunity of glancing at the first 
volume of W.M.’s new work—Herakles. It is pleas- 
ing to find so eminent an EKuripidean scholar also ex- 
pressing the opinion (p. 13) that the object of this 
play was ‘frieden mit Sparta, aber anschluss an Argos 
zu suchen’; but, as will be seen, I cannot accept his 
further conclusion that, at the time of the production 
of this play at any rate, Euripides hoped to find in 
Alcibiades a greater Pericles. This conclusion is 
founded on vv. 190—192 which, as already remarked, 
are regarded as spurious by several of the best 
editors. 

H 


98 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


φυλάσσουσ᾽ ὅντιν’ ἂν τάξῃ πόλις. OF the 
democratic side which Alcibiades was then 
favouring he uses very plain words (243) 
γλώσσαις πονηρῶν προστατῶν φηλούμενοι, and 
sketches the demagogue in the darkest colours 
(412 ff.). Huripides will have none of the 
young party who πολέμους αὐξάνουσ᾽ ἄνευ 
δίκης, | φθείροντες ἀστούς, ὃ μὲν ὅπως στρατη- 
λατῇ, ὃ 8 ὡς ὑβρίζῃ, δύναμιν ἐς χεῖρας 
λαβών, [ ἄλλος δὲ κέρδους οὕνεκ᾽ οὐκ ἀποσκο- 
πῶν | τὸ πλῆθος εἴ τι βλάπτεται πάσχων τάδε 
(233 ff.), words which were as true applied to 
those who wished to upset the peace of Nikias 
in 420 as in the mouth of Nikias himself 
before the Sicilian expedition (Thuc. vi. 
ΤΠ: 92). 

It is perhaps worth observing how careful 
Euripides is to make his audience see that he 
is not really describing a mythical scene, but 
one in which the majority of themselves 
have taken part. Little illusion as to the 
meaning of the play could be left after the 
reply of Theseus to the Theban herald (404) 
οὐ yap ἄρχεται ἑνὸς πρὸς ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐλευθέρα 
πόλις ἃ statement which is somewhat out of 
place in the mouth of even the most consti- 
tutional of ancient monarchs. The play is 
permeated with references to other events of 
the day. The words of Theseus (532) 
ὅθεν δ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐς τὸ φῶς ἀφίκετο | ἐνταῦθ᾽ 
ἀπῆλθε, πνεῦμα μὲν πρὸς αἰθέρα, | τὸ σῶμα δ᾽ ἐς 
γῆν are but a paraphrase of the inscription 
on those who fell at Potidaea (Hicks, /nscript. 
p. 60) αἰθὴρ μὲν ψυχὰς ὑπεδέξατο, σώ ματα δὲ 
χθών] | τῶνδε κιτιλ. The lines 847 ff. seem 
a distant reminiscence of the reply of the 
Spartan captured in Sphacteria to the 
Athenian ally who asked him εἰ οἱ τεθνεῶτες 
αὐτῶν καλοὶ κἀγαθοί (Thue. iv. 40). The 
course of the battle was obviously meant to 
remind the audience of Dehum. At the 
battle of Delium the right wing of the 
Athenians drove back the Boeotians while 
their own left wing which was opposed to 
the Thebans was defeated (Thuc. iv. 96, 3, 
4). Compare with this (Suppl. 703) λόχος δ᾽ 


ὀδόντων ὄφεος ἐξηνδρωμένος | δεινὸς παλαιστὴς 
ἣν" ἔκλινε γὰρ κέρας | TO λαιὸν ἡμῶν" δεξιοῦ δ᾽ 
ἡσσώμενον | φεύγει τὸ κείνων, ἣν δ᾽ ἀγὼν ἰσόρ- 
ροπος. Valuable light is tlrown on the λόχος 
ὀδόντων ὄφεος by a passage in Diodorus (xii. 
70) which tells us that in the front of the 
Theban force there fought a chosen band of 
three hundred, οἱ wap’ ἐκείνοις ἡνίοχοι καὶ παρα- 
Barat καλούμενοι. The names are specially 
interesting because they show that the band 
was really a survival from a time when the 
heroic methods of fighting were still in vogue 
and might therefore be attributed by 
Euripides without difficulty to the heroic 
period, 

Finally, when we remember that Amphia- 
raus had fled from before the walls of Thebes 
through the district of Oropus where the 
Athenians sought refuge after Delium, and 
that according to the legend he disappeared 
at Psaphis (Strabo, 6 399, Philostratus Jm- 
agines i, 26, 3), we see what opportunities 
Euripides had for connecting the battle of 
Delium with the story of the Seven and how 
cleverly he availed himself of these opportu- 
nities. 

It has been made an objection to the play 
that it has no action. That is true. But 
the Athenian absorbed in reviewing the 
history of his own time unrolled before him 
with only a change of names would not have 
felt this any more than he would have felt 
it in the Persae. The play is—as the frag- 
ment of the ὑπόθεσις describes it—an ἐγκώμιον, 
᾿Αθηνῶν and a much more skilful one than 
the Persae. It was easy for Aeschylus to 
make his panegyric after a great triumph ; it 
required much greater skill to do so after a 
great defeat. It is not in either case the 
highest form of dramatic art. But Euripi- 
des desired not only to praise Athens. He 
had a policy to support and a lesson to convey 
to his countrymen and, such being his aim, he 
could not have taken better means to attain 
it. 

P. GiLEs. 


THE PLOT OF THE AGAMEMNON. 


Dr. Verratt’s brilliant and ingenious 
introduction to the Agamemnon opens up a 
question which it will take time to decide 
upon. Having been much discontented for 
a long time with the plot of the play as we 
have all been taught it, I at any rate am 
glad to have something set before me which 


satisfies such modest demands as_ the 
aesthetic feeling of every reader makes with 
regard to the construction, or the skeleton, 
of a tragedy. It is in the hope that the 
following considerations may do something to 
further elucidate this difficult matter that I 
submit them to the reader. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 99 


Dr. Verrall lays great stress, as we all 
know, on the beacons, a feature of the play 
before inexplicable. Now it has never, I 
think, been pointed out in this connexion 
that in another story of the voyage home 
from Troy beacons play an important and 
disastrous part. Nauplius, the father of 
Palamedes, in revenge for his son’s death, 
lighted false beacons and so caused the 
returning fleet to suffer shipwreck. Accor- 
ding again to the Scholiast on Lycophron’s 
Alexandra, 1093, Ναύπλιος διατρίβων ἐν 
Ἑλλάδι παρεσκεύασε μοιχευθῆναι τὰς γυναῖκας 
τῶν ἐν τῇ Τροίᾳ: καὶ Κλυταιμνήστραν μὲν 
συνέμιξεν Αἰγίσθῳ κιτιλ So then in one story 
Nauplius and his beacons (ep. Lycophron 
1096) are connected with the adultery of 
Aegisthus and Clytemnestra to bring about 
the ruin of the fleet and of Agamemnon ; in 
the other story, that of Aeschylus, or of Dr. 
Verrall if you lke, beacons and the adul- 
terous pair are connected for the ruin of 
Agamemnon. This is hardly an accidental 
coincidence. 

Again, Aeschylus must have known the 
story of Nauphus. For Nauplius was one 
of the characters of the Νόστοι. πρὶν δὲ 
τελευτῆσαι ἔγημεν [ὃ Ναύπλιος), ὡς μὲν ot 
τραγικοὶ λέγουσι, Κλυμένην, ὡς δὲ ὁ τοὺς 
νόστους γράψας, Φιλύραν. Apollodorus Lidl. 
I. 2 (page 40 Teubner ed.). And the story 
of the shipwreck was told in the Νόστοι. 
εἶθ᾽ ὃ περὶ tas Kadnpidas πέτρας δηλοῦται 
χειμών, Says the Chrestomathia οἵ Proclus, in 
the epitome of the Νόστοι. It is no great 
assumption then that the beacon of Nauplius 
was a familiar story in the time of Aeschylus; 
at any rate it is more likely that he adapted 
this beacon story to his own ends than that 
there were two independent stories about 
beacons. 

Can the beacon, one may ask, be doing 
double duty ?° Is it both a signal to Clytem- 
nestra to be ready, and a false fire to destroy 
the Greek fleet? Aeschylus does not suggest 
this and it seems improbable, though it 
would give extra point to πῦρ καὶ θάλασσα in 
Agam. 656. Rather he prefers to make the 
beacon help in destroying Agamemnon in 
another way than in the old story, he or the 
authority he follows. He keeps the signal 
because it was in the legend, but drops 
Nauplius because he is not wanted and is 
better away. 


If Dr. Verrall is right the conspirators 
had information from Troy. Why then 
watch for a year? They need not have 
begun watching till they heard of the capture 
of Troy. The inconsistency is that (1) they 
had news continually, (2) they fear they may 
be taken unawares. This comes of the epic 
story being transplanted. Homer naturally 
supposes they have no news, and he sets a 
σκοπός. Aeschylus naturally supposes they 
have news but keeps the σκοπός all the same, 
and leaves the inconsistency to look after 
itself as Sophocles does with much worse 
ones in Oedipus Rex. If he had troubled 
himself about it, he would have made the 
φύλαξ only have been looking out for a week 
or two, but it is no wonder that he prefers the 
Homeric year. 

If we are to fill up the story in all its 
details we must suppose that watch was kept 
by day as well as by night, for a fleet is 
more likely to return by day of the two. 
But if the story said they returned by night, 
why should the poet trouble himself further ? 

Dr. Verrall justly lays stress on and 
defends line 1644 : 


> IN > / 3 Ν Ν ta 
οὐκ αὐτὸς nvapiles, ἀλλὰ σὺν γυνή. 


In further defence it may be observed that 
this line is a reminiscence of Homer λ. 409: 
ἔκτα σὺν οὐλομένῃ ἀλόχῳ. In both the point 
is the same, that Aegisthus devised the plot 
with the help of Clytemnestra. 

The great difficulty in Dr. Verrall’s view 
seems to be the φύλαξ. The Homeric watch- 
man knows perfectly what he is about ; why 
does the Aeschylean play a part he does not 
understand ? It is due, I think, to the Attic 
irony, which is powerfully developed in his 
joy at what he supposes the sign of his 
master’s success while it is really the sign of 
his ruin, and in his being the unconscious 
instrument, like Emilia, of what he least 
wishes. 

The great speech in which the beacons are 
described may well have had a special 
interest for the audience, which would ex- 
cuse its falsity, if a λαμπαδηφορία were to 
take place that evening after the tragedies 
were over. Clytemnestra herself speaks of 
it as a λαμπαδηφορία. 

ARTHUR Puatr. 


H 2 


100 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF CLAUSES FOLLOWING EXPRESSIONS OF 
EXPECTATION IN GREEK. 


In a note on Babrius ix, 2, discussing the 
constructions following expressions οἵ 
‘hoping’ in Greek, Mr. Rutherford has done 
good service in removing one of the few 
tares which have cropped up in the wheat of 
Mr. Goodwin’s Moods and Tenses, itself 
indeed a καλλίπταις ἀμητὸς ἐλπίδων πληρής. Mr. 
Rutherford there points the distinction 
between examples like ὄψον ἐλπίσας ἥξειν and 
ἐλπίς ἐστιν ἥκειν. In the former a future form 
of the inf. is required, because the inf. is 
oblique and so stands for a fut. indic. of the 
direct ; but in the latter, where the inf. is 
substantival, the pres. or aor. (without ἀν) 
may stand—indeed the full form ἐλπίς ἐστι 
τοῦ ἥκειν often occurs, as Thue. 11. 56, εἰς 
ἐλπίδα ἦλθον τοῦ ἑλεῖν. It appears however 
that Mr. Rutherford has overlooked another 
form, in which, though the governing phrase 
is verbal (ἐλπίζω, etc., not substantival ἐλπίς 
ἐστι etc.), the governed infinitive may still 
be substantival, and therefore does not 
necessarily take the mark of future time. 
We refer to those cases in which the inf. 
has no subject expressed. There is the same 
difference between ἐλπίζω σε ἥξειν, ‘I hope 
that you will come,’ and ἐλπίζω ἥκειν, ‘I hope 
to come,’ as there is between φησί σε ἐλθεῖν, 
‘he says that you came,’ and βούλεται ἐλθεῖν, 
‘he wishes to come.’ All this may seem 
very elementary, and indeed Mr. Goodwin 
has already stated quite clearly (p. 14) ‘the 
Greek makes no more distinction than the 
English between ἐλπίζει τοῦτο ποιεῖν, ‘he 
hopes to do this,” and ἐλπίζει τοῦτο ποιήσειν, 
“he hopes that he shall do this.”’ What, 
however, he does not appear to point out 
with sufficient emphasis is, that if the infin. 
had a subject expressed, only the latter of 
these forms would be admissible in Attic: 
when the inf. has no subject, either form 
may stand. Hence, we venture to think, 
his remarks on p. 33 (δ 23, 2) lack precision. 
Both θήσειν τὰ πρυτανεῖά φασί μοι (Ar. Nub. 
1180) and δικάσασθαί φασί μοι (id. 1141) are 
good Greek : but the latter means, not ‘they 
say they will bring an action against me,’ 
but ‘they speak of bringing an action 
against me.’ Cf. Pl. Huthyd. 278 C. ἐφάτην 
yap ἐπιδείξασθαι---ἃ τι idiomatic use, which has 
come down from forms like Hes. Op. 455, 
φησὶ δ᾽ ἀνὴρ φρένας ἀφνειὸς πήξασθαι ἅμαξαν, 
‘speaks of making,’ and Hom. 71. 13, 666, 
πολλάκι γάρ ot ἔειπε--- φθίσθαι, ‘announced 
him a perishing.’ These and similar con- 


structions after νομίζω, ἡγεῖσθαι, οἴομαι, φρονῶ, 
εὔχομαι etc. are idiomatic survivals from the 
fuller predication once conveyed by these 
verbs, ‘I am minded for,’ ete., to which the 
original use of the inf. as a dative naturally 
accommodated itself. The instances of this 
use are therefore most frequent in the 
earlier stage of the language: οἵ. 71. 2, 401, 
εὐχόμενος θάνατόν τε φυγεῖν, ‘for an escape,’ 
18, 497, ὃ μὲν εὔχετο πάντ᾽ ἀποδοῦναι (‘to pay 
all’) ὃ δ᾽ ἀναίνετο μηδὲν ἑλέσθαι (‘refused to 
receive anything’). Compare ἐέλπετο κῦδος 
ἀρέσθαι (It. 12, 407) with ἐέλπετο νῆας ἐνιπρή- 
σειν (15, 701); so Xenophon can say izo- 
σχόμενος μὴ παύσασθαι (An. 1, 22) or ὑπέσχετο 
μηχανὴν παρέξειν (Cyr. iv. 1, 31). Similarly, 
Il. 3, 98, φρονέω δὲ διακρινθήμεναι ἤδη 
᾿Αργείους καὶ Τρῶας, ‘I am minded for the 
Argives and Trojans being separated.’ Hence 
the same construction follows ὄμνυμι, oaths, 
which are of the nature of formulae, tending 
to preserve archaic constructions, Od. 4, 
256, ὦμοσε μὴ μὲν ἀναφῆναι, Hdt. 5, 106, 
ἐπόμνυμι μὴ ἐκδύσασθαι κιθῶνα. ‘These and 
similar passages seem to have been quite 
needlessly altered by recent editors against 
the best MSS. e.g. Jl. 20, 84, ἀπειλαὶ &s— 
ὑπίσχεο, ᾿Αχιλλῆος ἐναντίβιον πολεμίζειν, Where 
the pres. inf. seems sound, being in app. to - 
as, ‘the threats you undertook, namely, the 
fighting, 21,477 εὐχομένου---πολεμίζειν. Cf. 
22, 119: γερούσιον ὅρκον ἕλωμαι μή τι κατα- 
κρύψειν, αλλ᾽ ἄνδιχα πάντα δάσασθαι, 
where Mr. Leaf says the aor. ‘cannot be 
right,’ although in 235 νοέω τιμήσασθαι 
he rightly adheres to the MSS. reading. 
Several instances also occur in Attic 
writers, where the MSS. authority seems 
challenged without reason. Thus in all the 
Thucydidean passages cited by Mr. Ruther- 
ford (1, 11; 4, 24; 4, 80; 5, 28; 7, 21), 
the inf. has no subject, and the aor. or pres. 
may therefore stand as well as the fut. And 
4, 13, in which he finds especial difficulty, 
illustrates Thucydides’ usage particularly 
well, ἐλπίσαντες τὸ τεῖχος tos μὲν ἔχειν, 
ἀποβάσεως δὲ μάλιστα οὔσης ἑλεῖν μηχαναῖς. 
Here, as he says, ‘ ἐλπίσαντες 1 the first case 
means believe, but for the second clause 
hope’; hence he suggests μάλιστ᾽ av. But 
it may be observed that ἑλεῖν, which has no 
subject, needs not be oblique, and ἐλπίσας 
ἑλεῖν, ‘hoping to capture,’ presents no diffi- 
culty at all. (Soin Eur. H. F. 746, πάλιν 


ἔμολεν ἃ πάρος οὔποτε---ἤλπισεν παθεῖν, we do 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


not think ‘ Euripides wrote ἤλπισ᾽ ἂν παθεῖν. 
Thucydides rather affects the double con- 
struction illustrated above. Shilleto has 
well explained this use at ll. 3, ἐνόμισαν 
ἐπιθέμενοι ῥαδίως κρατῆσαι, comparing iv. 127, 
νομίσαντες φεύγειν τε αὐτὸν καὶ καταλαβόντες 
διαφθείρειν, ‘ thinking he was in flight and to 
destroy him.’ Yet recent editors have altered 
the reading of passages where just the same 
use reappears: vii. 42, 3, 6 δὲ Δημοσθένης... 
νομίσας οὐχ οἷόν τε εἶναι διατρίβειν, οὐδὲ 
παθεῖν ὅπερ 6 Νικίας ἔπαθεν, ‘thinking 
delay out of the question, and not being 
minded to fall into the same trap as Nicias 
had fallen into.’ This construction must be 
distinguished from cases like 11. 54, 2: τὴν 
ἐπιχείρησιν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῷ τε ἐνόμιζεν εἶν at, ὁπόταν 
βουλῆται...καὶ τότε καλλίστην γίγνεσθαι, 
‘thinking “the attack rests with me, and 
that’s the best time for it,’’’ where we have 
the oblique of the ‘vivid’ form, which ap- 
pears in iv. 10, 3, τοῦ χωρίου τὸ δυσέμβατον 
ἡμέτερον νομίζω (ὃ) μενόντων ἡμῶν ξύμμαχον 
γίγνεται: οἵ. Shilleto ad i. 127, 1. Both 
usages are united in iv. 24, 4 : Ῥήγιον ἤλπιζον 
ῥαδίως χειρώσασθαι καὶ ἤδη σφῶν ἰσχυρὰ τὰ 
πράγματα γίγνεσθαι, ‘hoping to capture 
Rhegium with ease, and ‘then we are 


2292 = > Ν 
safe” - iv. 9,2, ἐπισπάσασθαι αὑτοὺς 


101 


ἡγεῖτο προθυμήσεσθαι... ἐκείνοις τε βιασαμένοις 
τὴν ἀπόβασιν ἁλώσιμον τὸ χωρίον γίγνεσ- 
θαι, ‘thinking to entice them to be eager 
(Goodwin, p. 42) and that, if the enemy 
force a landing, the place zs in their power’ ; 
iv. 117, 1, νομίσαντες μὲν otk ἂν ἔτι τὸν 
Βρασίδαν σφῶν προσαποστῆσαι οὐδὲν... 
καὶ ξυμβῆναι τὰ πλείω, ‘thinking Β. 
would not...and intending to make peace.’ 
For a similar idiom in Latin ef. ‘facere dix- 
erunt,’ ‘putas posse,’ etc. (Roby 1345). 

We venture then, to dissent from Mr. 
Monro (#. G. 235), ‘the notion of future 
time may be given by an aorist or present 
inf.’ as well as from Mr. Rutherford (Babr. 
l.c.), that ‘ well- known and_acknow- 
ledged errors of copying’ are needed to 
account for ‘apparent exceptions to the 
legitimate construction,’ which we would 
state as follows: ἐλπίζω ete. followed by an 
ace, and inf. takes the same construction as 
any other ‘verb of reporting’; when 
followed by a simple inf., that inf. may 
either be oblique, in which case it takes the 
tense of the direct form, or ‘prolative,’ 1.6. 
a direct object, in which case it may be pres. 
or aor., and will not denote time (pres., past 
or fut.) at all. 

W. T. Lenprum. 


ON THE ANCIENT LAW OF SEARCHING FOR STOLEN PROPERTY. 


Gatus, in dealing with the actio prohibiti 
Jurti (111. 189 et seg.), says that the Twelve 
Tables enacted (Tab. VIII. 1. 15) ‘ut qui 
quaerere velit, nudus quaerat, linteo cinctus, 
lancem habens.’ In discussing this, he says 
‘quid sit linteum quaesitum est: sed verius 
est, aliqguod consuti genus esse, quo necess- 
ariae partes tegerentur.’ He mentions two 
explanations of the lanx only to condemn 
them. But Festus gives a third without 
remark: ‘lance et licio (1.6. linteo licio) 
dicebatur apud antiquos, quia qui furtum 
ibat quaerere in domo aliena, licio cinctus 
intrabat, lancemque ante oculos tenebat 
propter matrumfamilias aut virginum prae- 
sentiam.’ Those who accept this explanation 
of lanx say that it was held before the 
eyes that the searcher might not be recog- 
nized. Now I believe this law is the outcome 
of a primitive custom of searching naked 
for stolen property. For the sake of decency, 
the barest covering was added, but such that 
nothing could possibly be secreted in it. 
The theft in these cases was counted as 


‘manifest’ (Gelly xi, 18, 9), which shows 
that this law is the outcome of a state of 
things in which the injured man took the 
law into his own hands and struck while his 
blood was hot. (See Maine’s Ancient Law, 
p- 379). Now whatever the meaning and 
use of this lanx, common sense demands 
that a man who goes to search for stolen 
property should have his hands free, and I 
fail to see how a man quits the indecent for 
the decent state by holding a perforated 
plate before his face. I believe that in 
place of lancemque ANTE OCULOS TENE- 
BAT, which the stupid epitomizer of Festus 
gives, the original ran lancemque A LINTEO 
SUSPENDEBAT. Thus Festus took the 
covering to consist of a girdle suspending a 
lanx. Whether Festus’ explanation rests 
on any better authority than those rejected 
by Gaius, who can say? But the fact that 
he had an explanation which satisfied him 
sets up a strong presumption that it was, 
not necessarily the true one, but a rational 
one. Therefore the folly of it as it now 


102 


appears in the text is probably due not to 
Festus the lexicographer, but to Paulus the 
epitomizer. 

In the parallel passage in Plat. Laws 954 
φωρᾶν ἂν ἐθέλῃ τίς τι παρ᾽ γυμνὸς 
ἢ χιτωνίσκον. ἔχων ἄζωστος ... οὕτω φωρᾶν, 
C. Hermann is prob: vbly wrong in bracketing 
ἢ as spurious. This is from an old law, and 
in early language neither γυμνὸς nor nudus 
bore the secondary meaning they afterwards 
acquired, viz. ‘wearing only the tunica.’ 
Thus in Homer (Od. 6, 222) a man is 
ashamed to appear γυμνὸς, but (Od. 14, 489) 
not ashamed to appear οἰοχίτων. The dis- 
tinction is sometimes kept up in Attic, 
sometimes lost. Thue. 1, 6 in contrasting 
ἐγυμνώθησαν with διαζώματα ἔ ἔχοντες keeps it. 
So does Demosthenes in 21 ὃ 216 μικροῦ 
γυμνὸς ἐν TO χιτωνίσκῳ γενέσθαι, by inserting 
μικροῦ. Moreover Plato’s searcher is not to 
wear a girdle; but when γυμνὸς and pudus 
mean ‘ without the ἱμάτιον,᾽ they still imply 
that the girdle is retained, as in Vergil’s 


ὁτῳοῦν, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


‘nudus ara,’ where nudus means ‘ wearing 
the tunica succincta,’ and in Dem. 54 ὃ 9 
ἀπεκομίσθην γυμνὸς, οὗτοι δ᾽ ᾧχοντο θοιμάτιον 
λαβόντες. Hence in Plato there is a contrast 
between γυμνὸς and ἄζωστος. The Greeks 
qualified the original requirement of com- 
plete nudity in one way, the Romans in 
another. In Aristoph. Clouds 497 (Soer. 
ἴθι νυν, κατάθου θοιμάτιον. Streps. ἠδίκηκά τι; 
Socr. οὐκ ἀλλὰ γυμνοὺς εἰσιέναι νομίζεται. 
Streps. ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ φωράσων ἐγώγ᾽ εἰσέρχομαι), 
there isa play on the two meanings of γυμνός, 
Strepsiades in ἠδίκηκα and φωράσων under- 
standing Socrates to mean that he will have 
to take off girdle and χιτών as well as ἱμάτιον. 
I venture to doubt whether Westermann 
and Sandys rightly quote Lysist. 150 ἐν τοῖς 
χιτωνίοις γυμναί to illustrate Dem. 54 ὃ 9, 
since in the Lysistrata γυμνός, as in the law 
before us, has its original sense, the χιτωνία 
being transparent. 
EE. C. MarcHant. 


ON SOME PASSAGES IN THE TEXT OF PLATO'S THEAETETUS. 


149 D.—xat μὴν καὶ διδοῦσαί ye αἱ μαῖαι 
φαρμάκια καὶ ἐπάδουσαι. δύνανται ἐγείρειν TE τὰς 
ὠδῖνας καὶ μαλθακωτέρας, ἂν βούλωνται «ποιεῖν, 
καὶ τίκτειν τε δὴ τὰς δυστοκούσας, καὶ εὰν νέον ὃν 
δόξῃ ἀμβλίσκειν, ἀμβλίσκουσιν ; 

The words νέον ὄν are generally held to be 
corrupt : Schanz gives no fewer than four- 
teen emendations of different critics, besides 
his own. Of these perhaps the best is 
Heindort’s δέον. certainly the worst is 
Naber’s καὶ vavov ἂν δάξη. I conjecture νηδύν 
for νέον ov: cf. Eur. Andr. 355—6 ἡμεῖς yap 
εἰ σὴν παῖδα φαρμακεύομεν, καὶ νηδὺν ἐξα μ- 
βλοῦμεν κ-.τ.λ. 

155 E.—yapw οὖν μοι εἴσει, ἐάν σοι ἀνδρός, 
μᾶλλον δὲ ἀνδρῶν ὀνομαστῶν τῆς διανοίας τὴν 
ἀλήθειαν ἀποκεκρυμμένην συνεξερευνήσωμαι 

τος 
αὑτῶν ; 

The situation is this. Socrates humorously 
pretends that the true meaning of Protagoras’ 
πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπος has been intention- 
ally hidden away, being communicated to 
his pupils only in camera. If we look closely 
at the passage, we shall see that the 
metaphor is from the chase: this is clearly 
the meaning of συνεξερευνήσωμαι: ct. 
Homer Odyssey xix 435—436 οἱ δ᾽ és βῆσσαν 
ἵκανον ἐπακτῆρες" πρὸ δ᾽ ap αὐτῶν ἴχνι’ ἐρευ- 
νῶντες κ ves ἤισαν. But what of the final 
αὐτῶν! Except by Campbell, the word is 


regarded as corrupt by nearly every critic, 
as a glance at Schanz’s apparatus ecriticus 
will shew. 

Campbell suggests two explanations: 
either to take αὐτῶν as recapitulatory of 
ἀνδρῶν ὀνομαστῶν, or to make the word 
depend on ἐξ in συνεξερευνήσωμαι. Neither 
explanation seems consistent with the luci- 
dity of Plato’s style. Madvig and Kreyen- 
biihl suggest ἰών and μετιών respectively : 
they areright i in so far as they see that a parti- 
ciple is required, and Kreyenbiihl has done 
well in selecting one with associations of 
the chase. Plato perhaps wrote ἀστῶν, from 
ἀυτῶ, the words ἐρευνήσωμαι αὐτῶν being from 
the end of a hexameter. Fragments of 
poetry are frequently imbedded in the 
Platonic writings ; some will be pointed out 
later in this very dialogue. Translate: 

‘will you be grateful to me then, if with a 
halloo I help you to ferret from its lair 
(ἀποκεκρυμμένην) ete.’ The words accord 
well with Socrates’ hilarious mood: and 
Plato’s fondness for the ‘ venatory metaphor’ 
is well known (e.g. Republic iv 432 B—E). 

156 D.—séoov μὲν οὖν βραδύ, ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ 
πρὸς τὰ πλησιάζοντα τὴν κίνησιν ἴσχει καὶ οὕτω 
δὴ γεννᾷ, τὰ δὲ γεννώμενα οὕτω δὴ θάττω ἐστίν. 
φέρεται γὰρ καὶ ἐν φορᾷ αὐτῶν ἡ κίνησις 
πέφυκεν. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


The difficulties of this passage are well 
known. Plato is describing the πάντα ῥεῖ 
theory of perception. αἴσθησις and αἰσθητόν 
are declared to be the product of the inter- 
action between the ego (operating through the 
organ of sense) and the object. Now each of 
these, the ego, the object, the αἴσθησις and 
the αἰσθητόν, is a κίνησις or mode of change : 
the two former being slow, the two latter fast 
κινήσεις. It is this which the words quoted 
are meant to bring out, and even as they 
stand the meaning is clear, but the expres- 
sion is faulty, as the editors (including 
Campbell) admit. Cornarius supplies after 
the second οὕτω δή a long clause in which he 
completely mistakes Plato’s meaning: see 
Campbell’s note. Read, by transposition 
and omitting γὰρ after φέρεται, τὰ δὲ γεννώμενα 
φέρεται καὶ ἐν φορᾷ αὐτῶν ἡ κίνησις πέφυκεν 
«καὶ οὕτω δὴ θάττω ἐστίν. The whole 
sentence is then a perfect balance. With ἐν 
τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ πρὸς τὰ πλησιάζοντα τὴν κίνησιν 
ἔχει contrasts φέρεται καὶ ἐν φορᾷ αὐτῶν ἡ 
κίνησις πέφυκεν, and to ὅσον μὲν οὖν βραδύ, 
καὶ οὕτω δὴ θάττω ἐστίν forms the right antithe- 
sis. The words φέρεται καὶ ἐν φορᾷ αὐτῶν ἡ κίνη- 
σις πέφυκεν perhaps formed in the archetype 
a single line which fell out and and was 
restored after θάττω ἐστίν as a clause of 
reason, with γάρ instead of καί. 

162 E—re εἰκότι χρῆσθε, ᾧ «εἰ ἐθέλοι 
Θεόδωρος ἢ ἄλλος τις τῶν γεωμετρῶν χρώμενος 
γεωμετρεῖν, ἄξιος οὐδ᾽ ἑνὸς μόνου ἂν εἴη. 

The words οὐδ᾽ ἑνὸς μόνου have rightly 
proved a stumbling-block: Bonitz suggests 
οὐδ᾽ ἑνὸς Adyou,Madvig οὐδενὸς μνοῦ, Naber οὐδὲ 
Μάνου. Read οὐδ᾽ ἑνὸς νόμου, and understand 
the phrase agios οὐδ᾽ ἑνὸς νόμου as a Sicilian 


NOTES ON GREEK MSS. 


103 


proverb, meaning ‘not worth a single groat.’ 
Plato may well have brought the proverb 
with him from Sicily or lower Italy, where 
νόμος Was common in this sense: see Head’s 
Historia Numorum Ὁ. 55 and compare 
Epicharmus Frag. 93 (Ahrens) κάρυξ ἰὼν 
εὐθὺς πρία μοι δέκα νόμων μόσχον καλάν. 

108 E.—ri δέ; οὐ πολλῶν τοὶ Θεαίτητος 
μεγάλους πώγωνας ἐχόντων ἄμεινον ἂν ἐπακολου- 
θήσειε λόγῳ διερευνωμένῳ ; 

The words μεγάλους πώγωνας ἐχόντων have 
manifestly a hexametrical rhythm. Perhaps 
there is an allusion to some such line as 
ἄξιος ἴδρις ἀνὴρ πολλῶν πώγωνας ἐχόντων. 

109 Ο.-- πάντως τὴν περὶ ταῦτα εἱμαρμένην, 
ἣν σὺ ἐπικλώσῃς, δεῖ ἀνατλῆναι ἐλεγχόμενον. 

The insertion of av after ἥν is needless, for 
the words clearly refer to some fragment of 
dramatic poetry. The poetic ἀνατλῆναι and 
especially ἐπικλώσῃς, together with the semi- 
poetic εἱμαρμένη; make this inference obvious, 
and I believe we have here an allusion to 
some such lines as those of Cleanthes : 


+ , 3 κ" a Ν , 5 ε , 

ἄγου δέ μ᾽ ὦ Ζεῦ καὶ σύ y ἡ πεπρωμένη 
ΕἸ Lal 

ὅποι ποθ᾽ ὑμῖν εἰμι διατεταγμένος, 

ε ων ΄ > nv Ν Ν / 

ὡς ἕψομαί γ᾽ aoxvos: ἢν δὲ μὴ θέλω 

κακὸς γενόμενος, οὐδὲν ἧττον ἕψομαι. 


(apud Epictet. Man. 53.) 


Addressing himself to destiny, some 
character in a Greek play (most probably by 
Euripides) may have said : 


2. ὦ 3, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὅπῃ θέλεις ἀγε: 
εἱμαρμένην γὰρ ἣν ἐπικλώσῃ τύχη 
πάντως ἀνατλῆναι χρεών. 


J. ADAM. 


IN ITALIAN LIBRARIES. 


(Continued from Vol. 111]. page 352.) 


THE following article contains notes taken 
down in Rome and elsewhere in the earlier 
half of the year 1889, during a journey in 
Italy under the Craven Trust. Their com- 
parative scantiness may perhaps be excused 
by the circumstance that the writer had 
begun to devote his time to a definite philo- 
logical object, which allowed him only occa- 
sionally to note down points of general 
interest. It has seemed worth while to 
print them, without waiting for a possible 
opportunity of completion, partly because so 
many Italian libraries have so little chance 
of possessing a printed catalogue that any 


information concerning them must for some 
time to come possess value, and also to spare 
future travellers the trouble of investiga- 
ting out-of-the-way collections that have 
been more or less completely looked through 
by the writer. 

The writer desires to take this occasion of 
expressing his obligations to the authorities 
of the Public Libraries of Pistoia, Lucca 
and Siena. It may be well also to say 
definitely, what few people now would be 
inclined to believe, that there are no Greek 
MSS. in the University Library at Pisa. 


104 
ΒΙΒΙΙΟΤΒΟΑ VALLICELLIANA. 


An account of the steps by which the 
library of 8. Maria in Vallicella acquired its 
books may be read in Blume, iii. p. 161 sq. 
The Greek MSS., taken by themselves, do 
not afford much indication of ownership ; 
occasional references occur to the Portu- 
guese Achilles Statius, the so-called founder 
of the library, and to other XVIth cen- 
tury personages, such as Fulvio Orsini and 
Cardinal Sirleto. These I have gathered 
together, wherever they were met. The 
collection is not of very great importance, 
although the notes that I give here do not 
fairly represent it. I wish to reiterate this, 
lest any one should be deterred from examin- 
ing the library by the thought that its con- 
tents had been exhausted. There is a full 
but somewhat inconvenient MS. catalogue of 
Greek MSS. Facsimiles of seven MSS. may 
be found in Blanchinus, Lvangelium Quad- 
ruplex, Romae 1748. 


], A. 25. A Latin Ms. oF Curysostom adversus 
Vituperatores vitae monasticac, to which is prefixed 
one quinion, being 10 pages, of a xvth cent. vellum 
MS. of EuRIPIDEs, containing Bios εὐριπίδου, hypothe- 
sis and Hecusa 1—327. It is in the hand of John 
Rhosus. 

2. B. 86. 5. xii. On f. 1517. in a monocondylion, 


ἰωακεὶμ tepduovaxos, 228v. γεώργιος ἔγραψε ὁ τοῦ 
ἡλίου. 
3. Β. 70. bomb. ff. 91s. xiv. ArscHYLUS, PRoM. 


inc. v. 187, S.c. TH., PERSAE. 

4, B. 115. bomb. 5. xiv. GrorGIus PIsIDIUS DE 
IMPERIO CONSTANTINOPOLITANORUM, etc. At beg. 
Fulvius Ursinus dono dedit | Achilli Statio Lusitano. 

5, C. 8. chart. 5. xv. OpuscuLA CAESARII; at the 
end, ἐν μουνεμβασίῃ ἔγέγραπτο. On the last page, 
abhine DC. annos fuisse putat Card. Sirletus et valde 
probat. 

6, C. 28. chart. 5. xvi. contains lists of MSS. be- 
longing to Sirleto and to the Eeclesia Trevirensis. 

7, C. 61. s. xv. Gospets. At end, τὸ τέλος ἧκε 
THS παρούσης“ πυξίδος ἄγγελος θύτης διεγράψατο φίλοι. 

8. C. 29. chart. s,xvi. ΡΉΟΤΙΙ, IULIANI EPISTOLAE. 
f. 54, at end of Photius, ex codice no. xxix. 38 Biblio- 
thecae Sfortanae, Romae in Die 8 Februarii MDC. 
anno Jubilaci; at end of Julian, omnia quae in hoc q” 
sunt in exemplart Ant. Augustini desunt, ego tran- 
scripsi ex codice vaticano die 26 Februarvi 1588. 

9, D. 43. membr. 11 x 82, ff. 85 5. xi. according to 
the Index. 5. Grecortr Magni DraAnocr (Latin). 
At the end, 2 ff. in Greek, concerning which a note 
at the beginning says Jn fine hujus Voluminis swnt 
duae Paginae perantiqui Codicis Graeci quae Indicem 
incerti operis continent. They are in the hand of 
Paul, Abbott of Grotta Ferrata, the writer of the MS. 
Grott. Ferr. B. ἃ. 1. of the year 986. See ‘Notes on 
Abbreviations in Greek Manuscripts,’ Oxford 1889, 
pp. 33, 94, 

10. ΕΞ 29. membr. s. x. Dion. AREOPAG., 
Lea scholia, in a fine minuscule hand above the 
ine. 

11. F. 10. membr. 93 x 63 in., ff. 252, 27 1]. qua- 
ternions 5. x. contains CANONS, S. BASIL AND OTHERS’ 
EPISTLES ON THE CANONS. Handsome minuscule 
above the line, small semiuncial scholia. A leaf of 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


contemporary minuscule from another book is in- 
serted at the beginning. 

12. F. 16. chart. s. xv. contains ff. 2-44 VAR. ECCL., 
45-52 ILIAD Καὶ 332-3 467, 53-60 AnrisropH. ACH. 
661-893, 61 sg. Hestop O. 1). THroc. Scur. HER. 
with Scholia. 

13, F. 17. membr. EVANGELIA, al. a. 1330, very 
carefully written in the xiith century style. At 
end, 

μιχαῆλ ἱερεὺσ ὃ καλόθετος" μῆ ἰουλ. 6 ivd. vy 
ἔτους ςὡλ [1330] 

14, F. 25. membr. 5. xvi. contains ff. 64-71, 
ARIsTOPH. Plutus 1-55. 

15. F. 59. 2s. xv. Curysosrom. On the flyleaf, 
in a different hand to that of the text, some verses 
eis τὴν ἁγίαν τῆς θεοτόκου Kolunaw, after which, 
Habui a Card. Sirletto repertum in libro ut aiebat | 
scripto abhine ceccccece. annos litteris grandibus | 
addendum ad ἐκλογάδιον in hoc libro. There is 
a reference to Sirleto also in F. 59. 1. 

16, F. 47. membr. 74x 4% in., ff. 547, 29 IL, 
quaternions, 5. x. contains CANoNs, written in a 
beautiful small minuscule. 

17. 68. chart xv.—xvi. has at the end two lines of 
cryptography. 

18. F. 83. chart. 5. xvi. GkoRGII SCHOLARII 

yo 
GRAMM. ff. 50 on f. 50 iw στρατηγὸς ἔγραψεν τὸ 
BiBrtoy | 6 κυθηριώτη». 


ARCHIVIO DI SAN PIETRO. 


By the permission of the Chapter of S. 
Peter’s, and with the kind assistance of Don 
Pietro Wenzel and Don Giovanni Silvestri 
I spent a morning among the MSS. that are 
preserved in the Chapter Library of S. 
Peter’s. I subjoin notes of two manuscripts 
that I noticed more particularly. 


1, C. 152. chart. xv. 84x 6 in. 

ff. 1—94 ArisropH. PLuT. from v. 206, CLouDs, 
with scholia and interlin. glosses. Hrs. THEOG. ὁ. 
schol., followed by the HomILIEs oF SCHOLARIUS 
GENNADIUvs, and other ecclesiastical matter. 

At the end: 

οἱ παρόντες λόγοι καὶ κανόνες ἠἡγοράσθησαν 

διὰ τὸν ἅγιον τάφον, παρὰ τοῦ ὁσιωτάτ' ἐν ἱερο 

μονάχοις κυροῦ σιλβέστρου καὶ πρωτοσυγγέλου τῶν 

ἱεροσολύμων ἐν ἔτει (ρκη [1620] 

7 AN tk 
μ ἰου ιζ 
ἐγραφ. παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ καὶ ἐλαχίστου 
Νον 

τῶν ἱερέων γγι[1]καὶ οἰκονόμου τῆς ἁγιωτάτης ap Em 

σκοπῇ5 πωγιιαννῆ". 
other similar inscriptions in different parts of the 
book. 

9. H. 45. membr. 9x7 im., ff. 308, s. xiii. 
palimpsest, very damaged, contains GALEN, part 
of his works. 

At the end, partly in tachygraphical writing, τοῦ 
φιλοσόφου κυροῦ φιλαγάθου. 


PISTOIA. 


R. Licto FortTiguERRI. 


1. A. ὅδ. membr. 103 x 63, ff. 225, 35 11, s. xv. 
contains the Intap; without scholia. Initials of 
books illuminated, and a picture of Homer at the beg. 
In the same hand as the next. Two inscriptions in 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Latin, on f. 1 and at the end, I was unable even with 
the Librarian’s help to decipher. 

9, A. 24. THEOCRITUS AND HesIop, in the same 
hand as A 55; with the subscription Τέρμα θεοκρίτου 
ὑπὸ σωζομένου γραφέντος ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ. 

The hand is plain and rather poor. 

Upon Sozomenus, and the donation of books of 
which these two MSS, are part, reference may be 
made to Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Pistoriensis 1752 yp. 
29 sq. The other Greek MSS. that are mentioned in 
the inventory, 7b. p. 44, were not shown tome. The 
Liceo possesses a good MS. Catalogue by Vittorio 
Capponi, 1873. 


Lucca. 
R. BrsuiotecaA PUBBLICA. 


1, 1387. chart. s. xv. PRoctus on Puat. Tim. 

9, 2502. s. xv. PsatTER. At beg. Ou τὸ δῶρον 
vedgitov δὲ πόνος“. 

9. 1424. chart. 58. χυ. Euriprprs Ηπο. ELectr. 
Belonged to Cesare Lucchesini, as did most of these 
MSS. 

4, 1254. The notebook of some scholar. 

5, 1427.. chart. s. xv. THEocR. IDYLL., PHAL. 
Epp., Fastes, Hesrop O. D. Au. In various hands. 

6, 1426. chart. xv. Azsop. On the vellum cover, 
Iste liber est mei Caroli S. Joannis andre | despiglatis 
Cwis flor :— 

7, 2335. CiceRoNIs SomNiuM Scrip. ET AEsop. 
FABUL. GRAECE. a. 1767. 
λατινιστὶ μεταφρασθεὶς | καὶ γραφεῖς παρὰ | φραγκίσκου 
ξανερίου | Βογγὶ τῆς | ξυναγωγῆς τῆς Μητρὸς | τοῦ 


θεοῦ | ἐν Νεαπόλει] ἀψέζ 
8. 13875. A comMEDY, ITALIAN AND GREEK, by 
Agostino Ricchi, s. xvii. 


SIENA. 


R. BrisiiotEeca PUBBLICA. 


1. THE GosPELS IN GREEK. Membr. 144 x12, 23 
ll., signed quaternions, 5. xi.-xiil. ; illuminated and 
splendidly bound in boards covered with silver-gilt 


105 


plates with pictures in enamel. Said to have come 
from the imperial chapel at Constantinople. 

9. I. ix. 8. chart. 5. xvi. contains AxscH. S. c. TH. 
PrersaE, Hom. BarracH., Musarus, Her. ET 
LEAND. (part). 

Ὁ. I. ix. 4. membr. 5. xv. Heston, O. ἢ). THEoOG. 
Scur. Her., THEocr. ΤΟΥΤῚ. (part). Unsigned, 
but in the hand of John Scutariota. 

. H. vi. 9. membr. s. xvi. PLUTARCH ep 
φιλαδελφιάς. At beg. Luzio Borghesi. 

Two other MSS. are of the xviiith century and 
unimportant. 


INDEX. 
DATES. 
1330, Vall. 13. 
1588, Vall. 8. 
1600, Vall. 8. 
SCRIBES. 


Angelus θύτης, Vall. 7. 

Georgius Eliae, Vall. 2. 

John Rhosus, Vall. 1. 

John Scutariota, Siena 3. 

John Strategus Cytheriota, Vall. 18. 
Michael καλόθετος Vall. 13. 
Neophytus, Lucca 2. 

{Paul, of Grotta Ferrata, Vall. 9.] 
Sozomenus, Pistoia 1, 2. 


OWNERS ete. 


Agostino, Antonio, Vall. 8. 
Bonghi, Francesco Xaverio, Lucca 7. 
Borghesi, Luzio, Siena 4. 
Joachim, hieromon, Vall. 2. 
Lucchesini, Cesare, Lucca 3 ete. 
Monembasia, Vall. 5. 
Orsini, Fulvio, Vall. 4. 
Philagathus, ὃ. Peter’s 2. 
Tlwyuavyy (archbishopric), S. Peter’s 1. 
Ricchi, Agostino, Lucca 7. 
Sforza (library), Vall. 8. 
Silvestro (πρωτοσύγκελλος of Jerusalem), S. Peter’s 1. 
Sirleto, Vall. 5, 6, 15. 
Spigliati, Carlo san Giovanni Andrea, dei, Lucca 6. 
Trevirensis, ecclesia, Vall. 6. 
ΠΣ W. ALLEN. 


TUCKER’ SUPPLICES OF AESCHYLUS. 


The Supplices of Aeschylus, a revised text 
with Introduction, Critical Notes, Com- 
mentary and Translation, by T. G. 
Tucker, M.A., Professor of Classical Phil- 
ology in the University of Melbourne, late 
Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge. 
London, Macmillan and Co. 1889. 8vo. 
pp. Xxxvil, 228. 10s. 6d. 


Tuts edition gives proof of many virtues: 
common sense, alert perception, lucidity of 
thought, impatience of absurdity, a rational 
distrust of MS. tradition, anda masculine taste 
in things poetical. The learner who attacks 
the play with this commentary will find un- 
failing help by the way and acquire much 


information before his journey’s end. ‘The 
old miserable experiences of the classical 
student who wants to understand what he 
reads, his lonely fights with difficulties 
whose presence the editor has never ap- 
prehended, his fruitless quest of a meaning 
in notes where the editor has rendered Greek 
nonsense into English nonsense and gone on 
his way rejoicing, are not repeated here. 
Here on the contrary is a commentator who 
shares the reader’s difficulties, rescues him 
from some of them, warns him of some ex- 
isting unperceived, and to tell the truth 
invents a good many where none exist. 

It is Prof. Tucker’s main concern, as it 
must be for an editor of this play, to find 


100 


out what. Aeschylus wrote; and his ad- 
ministration of this province will decide the 
value of the book as an original contribution 
to learning. He has introduced into the 
text, I reckon roughly, about 200 conjectures 
of his own. It is thecritic’s chief duty, and 
should be his chief pleasure, to commend what 
is good ; so I begin with four emendations 
which I should call quite certain. 

115 (as if our studies were not yet enough 
perplexed with conflicting numerations Mr. 
Tucker has invented a new one: I ignore 
this and cite according to Dindorf). τοιαῦτα 
πάθεα μέλεα Opeopeva δ᾽ ἐγὼ λιγέα βαρέα daxpv- 
οπετῆ, ἴὴ ip, ἰαλέμοισιν ἐμπρεπῆ, ζῶσα 
γόοις με τιμῶ. Whether this means conspi- 
cuous for or among dirges, neither suits, and 
Dindorf is obliged to translate decens, aptus, 
1.6. to render ἐμπρεπής as if it were ξυμπρε- 
ays. Mr. Tucker writes ἐμ φερῆ which 1 
find most convincing: the sense is just what 
one looks for and the error of a common 
type. 
121. πολλάκι δ᾽ ἐμπίτνω ξὺν λακίδι AL VOl- 
σιν HL Σιδονίᾳ καλύπτρᾳ : in the repetition 
αὖ 138 αἴνοισιν ἢ. At first this looks like 
λίνοισιν ἢ, but since ἢ is not at all appropriate 
they conjecture ἠδὲ or λίνοισι καὶ: Mr. 
Tucker however comparing Cho. 27 λινό- 
φθοροι Aakides proposes ξὺν λακίδι λινοσινεῖ, 
an admirable correction. 


341—4., 
B. βαρέα σύ γ᾽ εἶπας, πόλεμον ἄρασθαι νέον. 
X. ἀλλ᾽ ἡ δίκη γε ξυμμάχων ὑπερστατεῖ. 
B. εἴπερ γ᾽ ax’ ἀρχῆς πραγμάτων κοινωνὸς ἣν. 
X. aidod σὺ πρύμναν πόλεος ὧδ᾽ ἐστεμμένην. 


‘Yes, if she was concerned in the affair at 
first’ is nothing to the point: that Justice 
was concerned one way or the other there 
can be no manner of doubt. Or if there is 
an insinuation that the Danaids were first in 
the wrong, they cannot afford to ignore it in 
their reply. Mr. Tucker alters ἣν to 7, 
‘that would have force had J been originally 
concerned, but now it is no business of mine,’ 
an answer which compels the suppliants to 
shift their ground ; and we are really nearer 
the MS. than before, for in the next verse it 
gives ἐστεμμένη : the ν was transposed. 


φύλαξαι μὴ θράσος τέκῃ φόβον. 
Ν \ / m” ri ed 4 “2 
καὶ δὴ φίλον τις ἔκταν᾽ ἀγνοίας ὕπο. 


No recorded use of καὶ δὴ is here in place : 
Mr. Tucker writes 757: one abbreviation of 
καὶ is much confused with ἡ, and ἤδη is so 
appropriate to the sententious aorist that 
the correction, once made, is obvious. 

The following conjectures I select as 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


favourable specimens. 154. εἰ δὲ μὴ, μελανθὲς 
ἡδιόκτυπον γένος τὸν γάιον...Ζῆνα.. «ἱξόμεσθα : 
Wellauer’s ἡλιόκτυπον is generally read, but 
Mr. Tucker objects that κτύπος means noise 
not merely stroke and that ὀμβρόκτυπος 
νιφόκτυπος χιονόκτυπος do not warrant ἡλιό- 
κτυπος = ἡλιόβλητος : he writes with great in- 
genuity μέλαθρ᾽ és ἡλίῳ στυγούμεν᾽ ὡς τὸν γάιον 
k.7.A.: the sense is excellent and the changes 
though numerous are all easy : it must how- 
ever be remarked that the preposition os is 
not found in Aeschylus. 198. τὸ μὴ μάταιον 
δ᾽ ἐκ μετώπων σωφρονῶν | ἴτω προσώπων : Mr. 
Tucker writes κατωποσωφρόνων which he 
compares with such compounds as ἁγνόρυτος 
and ἀκριτόφυρτος : certainly former conjec- 
tures have small likelihood, Porson’s least of 
all. 220 sq. A. Ἑρμῆς ὅδ᾽ ἄλλος τοῖσιν 
Ἑλλήνων νόμοις. | X. ἐλευθέροις νῦν ἐσθλὰ 
κηρυκευέτω: here ἐλευθέροις seems quite 
irrelevant, and Mr. Tucker proposes ἀλλ᾽ 
εὑρεθεὶς with allusion to Hermes as the god 
of εὑρήματα : this to be sure gives the verse 
a point, though hardly perhaps of the sort 
one looks for after the six foregoing lines. 
380. φόβος μ’ ἔχει φρένας δρᾶσαί τε μὴ 
δρᾶσαί τε καὶ τύχην ἑλεῖν: Mr. Tucker's 
difficulties about ἑλεῖν I share to the full ; 
but when he writes τύχην ἐᾶν, to be con- 
strued closely with p27 δρᾶσαι, the result 
is not a well-balanced phrase. 405. τί τῶνδ᾽ 
ἐξ ἴσου ῥεπομένων μεταλγεῖς τὸ δίκαιον ἔρξαι ; 
a man cannot μεταλγεῖν what he has ποῦ 
yet done, so Tournier proposes μ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἀργεῖς : 
Mr. Tucker’s pe ταρβεῖς seems better. 480 
sqq. σὺ μὲν, πάτερ γεραιὲ τῶνδε παρθένων, | 
κλάδους Te τούτους ail’ ἐν ἀγκάλαις λαβὼν | 
βωμοὺς ἐπ’ ἄλλους δαιμόνων ἐγχωρίων | θές: 
an anacoluthon mended in various ways, as 
by altering σὺ to cod (-- ὅρμα) or τε to γε 
or aiy’ to aip’ or λαβὼν βωμοὺς to λαβὲ 
βωμούς 7’. But Mr. Tucker further points 
out what seems to have escaped notice, 
that τούτους cannot well be right when the 
Danaids are found still in possession of their 
κλάδοι at 506, and he removes two difficulties 
by the easy change of τε τούτους to τοιούτους. 
632. θεοὶ διογενεῖς, κλύοιτ᾽ εὐκταῖα γένει χεού- 
cas: γένει. seems quite harmless, but in M it 
is corrected into γένη whence Mr. Tucker 
conjectures τέλη, offerings: the word is 
appropriate and the error common. 854: 
certain restoration there can be none in 
this wilderness of ruin, but δύσφρον᾽ ἀνάγκαν 
for δύσφορα ναὶ κἀν ought to be right. 907. 
διωλόμεσθα ἐπτάναξ πάσχομεν : it is usual to 
read ἄελπτ᾽, ἄναξ, πάσχομεν with Robortellus, 
but Mr. Tucker’s acer? seems more suitable. 
924, ἄγοιμ᾽ ἂν, εἴ τις τάσδε μὴ ᾿ξαιρήσεται: 
this weak verse Mr. Tucker alters to μάθοιμ᾽ 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ἂν εἴ τις τάσδε μ᾽ ἐξαιρήσεται comparing Eur. 
And. 715 ὡς ἂν ἐκμάθω | εἴ τίς με λύειν τῆσδε 
κωλύσει χέρας : the change cannot be called 
certain, but to me it is very attractive. 
1018. ἴτε μὰν dorvdvaxtas μάκαρας θεοὺς 
γανάεντες πολιούχους τε καὶ οἱ xedp’ ’Epacivou 
περιναίουσιν : Mr. Tucker objects to ‘ city- 
gods’ comprising both πολιούχους and οἱ χεῦμ᾽ 
Ἔ.. περιναίουσιν, and writes ἄστυδ᾽, ἄνακτας : 
the meaning οἵ ἄστυ however need not be 
more restricted here than in ἀστυγειτονουμένας 
286: the tragedians, as Strabo vill. p. 356 
observes, often make no difference between 
burgh and land. 1063. Ζεὺς ἄναξ ἀποστεροίη 
γάμον : this sense of the verb is unexampled, 
and Mr. Tucker’s ἀποστέγοι μοι is as likely 
as Hartung’s ἀποστρέφοι μοι. 

Among the residue of the 200 conjectures 
there may very well be some which will seem 
more probable to other critics than to me, 
but there can hardly be many. Mr. Tucker’s 
objections to the vulgate are often acute and 
true: some instances I have given; others 
are the remarks on σκόπον 647 and κλύουσά 
γ᾽ ὡς ἂν οὐ φίλη 718, and the geographical 
difficulties raised about 254—7. Hisaltera- 
tions seldom fail to give a just and straight- 
forward meaning ; and the book is almost 
wholly free of those incredible emendations 
which consult the apices codiewm and consult 
nothing else. There is indeed one extra- 
ordinary specimen of this class at 146, where 
ἔχουσα σέμν᾽ ever ἀσφαλές is altered into 
λέχους ἄσεμν᾽ ἐν "Omid. σφάλασα, a reading 
dependent on two fables, both invented by 
Mr. Tucker,—that Orion assaulted one of 
Artemis’ handmaids named Opis, and that 
λέχους ἄσεμνα is Greek for unholy lust; but 
this stands almost alone. What vitiates 
two thirds of Mr. Tucker’s conjectures is 
that despite his professions he takes no 
due heed to palaeographical probability. 
‘In the present work,’ says he in his preface, 
‘there have been assumed as axioms...... 
(iii.) that the reading substituted on conjec- 
ture must approve its claims by satisfying 
the conditions of palaeography—as a most 
natural source of the incorrect reading.’ 
But this is just what an average conjecture 
of Mr. Tucker’s does not. True, it seldom 
sets the MS. utterly at naught, and it is 
usually fortified by a parade of uncial type, 
the decorative effect of which is often 
pleasing ; but it diverges too far from the 
ductus litterarum to have any convincing 
force. Possible no doubt it is; but half-a- 
dozen alternatives are equally possible. We 
know of course that the scribes did make 
mistakes as bad as those which Mr. Tucker 
postulates ; but when such mistakes have 


107 


once been made they can never be corrected. 
Jt may be that εἴρηται λόγος was the source 
of εἰθείη Διός, Γλκμων of Στρυμών, δηχθῆναι 
πόθῳ of μιχθῆναι βροτῷ, φοβουμένους of φόβῳ 
φρενός, διόρνυται ἐς οὗ διορνυμένα, τίς ποτ᾽ οὐ of 
τις βροτῶν, στυφελώδεις οὗ φυγάδες, κηπωρικὴν 
λαβοῦσ᾽ ἀνεωσμένην θύραν of καλωρα κωλύουσαν 
θωσμένειν ἐρῶ ; and if the ghost of ever-living 
Aeschylus has uprisen before Mr. Tucker 
from Acherusian quarters and has begun to 
shed salt tears and to unfold in words that 
it was so, well. But if not, then such in- 
ventions may indeed convince their inventor, 
but to the cold world they are offered in 
vain. 

When Mr. Tucker’s conjectures are not 
palaeographically improbable they are apt to 
be causeless and even detrimental. Among 
the axioms assumed in the preface are 
the following: ‘the reading in the text 
must hold its place until such cause to 
the contrary can be shewn as will satisfy 
a rigidly impartial tribunal. The onus 
probandi lies entirely with the impugner 
of the text.’ ‘The conditions of dispos- 
session are these. It must either be proved 
that the reading is an impossibility, or 
else that in point of grammar it is so ab- 
normal, or in point of relevance so mani- 
festly inappropriate, as to produce a thorough 
conviction that the MS. is in error. I for 
my part should call this much too strict ; 
but these are Mr. Tucker’s principles. His 
practice is something quite different: in 
practice no word, however good, is safe if Mr. 
Tucker can think of a similar word which is 
not much worse. 180 sq. ὁρῶ κόνιν, ἄναυδον 
ἄγγελον στρατοῦ. | σύριγγες οὐ σιγῶσιν ἀξονήλα- 
τοι: Mr. Tucker removes the stop after 
στρατοῦ and alters οὐ to οὗ. ‘The ΜΗ. 
reading ov,’ says he, ‘causes an asyndeton 
which can only be explained by a protracted 
pause after στρατοῦ, while Danaus is awaiting 
further developments.’ Five lines later on 
we learn that ‘Danaus must have paused 
several times in this speech, commenting 
from time to time on the further progress of 
the Argives,’ so there is an end of that 
objection: proceed to the next. There is 
none. There are assertions, possibly true 
but on the editor’s principles irrelevant, that 
the new reading is better; and that is 
all. 418 sqq. φρόντισον καὶ γενοῦ πανδίκως 
εὐσεβὴς πρόξενος: τὰν φυγάδα μὴ προδῷς κ-τ.λ.: 
Mr. Tucker removes the colon and writes 
προδούς. ‘The change is a mere trifle, but it 
is a trifle for the worse, since the μηδ᾽ ἴδῃς 
which follows tallies rather better with μὴ zpo- 
δῷς than with γενοῦ πρόξενος μὴ προδούς : and 
when Mr. Tucker says that προδούς is given 


108 


on the same obvious ground as that of the 
change ἐκδῷς to éxdovs in 340, he quite mis- 
apprehends that obvious ground, which is, if 
I must explain it, that the question πῶς is 
more properly answered by a participle than 
by a finite verb. 517 sqq. ἐγὼ δὲ λαοὺς Evy- 
καλῶν ἐγχωρίους | στείχω, τὸ κοινὸν ὡς ἂν εὐμε- 
νὲς τιθῶ. [ καὶ σὸν διδάξω πατέρα ποῖα χρὴ 
λέγειν : Mr. Tucker puts a comma after τιθώ 
and writes διδάξων. Now στείχειν is a neces- 
sary preliminary to ξυγκαλεῖν because the 
λαοί are away in the city, whence ξυγκαλών 
στείχω: to διδάσκειν it is not a necessary 
preliminary, for Danaus stands by the 
speaker’s side: better then διδάξω than 
στείχω διδάξων. If we had διδάξων I would 
not take the trouble to alter it, because 
the superiority of διδάξω is not worth the 
change ; but superior it is. 606. ὥστ᾽ ἀνη- 
βῆσαί pe γηραιᾷ φρενί: Mr. Tucker writes 
γηραιὰν φρένα because the dative would imply 
that it is the aged heart which makes the 
speaker grow young again, and because if we 
are to express the part or respect in which 
the rejuvenation takes place we must use the 
accusative: then γήθησε δὲ θυμῷ, for instance, 
means ‘he rejoiced because of his soul.’ 
935. τὸ νεῖκος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐν ἀργύρου λαβῇ | ἔλυσεν: 
it occurs to Mr. Tucker that λαβῇ and 
βλαβῇ look much alike and both make sense ; 
the MS. gives one, therefore Aeschylus wrote 
the other. But this method cannot well be 
avowed, so he looks round for a stone to 
throw at λαβῇ, and the first that comes to 
hand is this: “AaBy is avery common word 
and always means either a handle ora grasp. 
We have no authority for treating it as= 
λῆψις. Very good; but at 674 we had these 
excellent remarks on φόρος (which is a very 
common word and always means tribute, and 
which we have no authority for treating as 
= φορά) : ‘just as τόκος and πρόσοδος had a 
general meaning before and besides interest 
and revenue, so φόρος had a general meaning 
before and besides ¢tribute. The special 
meaning is the only one in prose, but not in 
verse. dopa is both tax and crop, and φόρος 
should be given the same values. Indeed 
weareapt to insufliciently remember thesound 
(and etymological suggestion) of Greek words 
to Greek ears. dopovs=bearings and yas is 
sufficient definition.” Why then are we not 
to say that AaBy=taking and ἀργύρου is 
sufficient definition? because φόρους has the 
luck to be a conjecture and λαβῇ the mis- 
fortune to stand in a MS. 961. μονορρύθ- 
μους δόμους : ‘ we can hardly speak of a house 
havinga ῥυθμός...... a house cannot even meta- 
phorically have a ῥυθμός᾽ : 1.6. Mr. Tucker, 
preoccupied with the interests of his conjec- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


ture povoppvpous, has omitted to look out 
ῥυθμός in the dictionary ; just as at 533 he 
asserts, to recommend his proposal there, 
that ‘rhythm points to a pause at yévos,’ 
forgetting that if so, then in the antistrophic 
verse 526 rhythm points to a pause in the 
middle of the word τελειότατον. But when 
one hangs one’s criminals first and tries 
them afterwards, a flaw in the indictment 
is of no practical consequence. 

The emendations of scholars fare no better 
than the readings of the MS. if their place 
is wanted for a conjecture of the editor's 
own. Again and again in passages which 
we all thought had been corrected long ago 
Mr. Tucker proffers another solution, not 
better but newer, and promotes it, with 
rigid partiality, to the text. 56. γνώσεται δὲ 
λόγους τις ἐν μάκει : Mr. Tucker very properly 
objects to μάκει standing alone and alters 
λόγους to χρόνου. Can he not see that before 
we bestow a thought on this he must de- 
molish Martin’s λόγου which removes the 
difficulty so much more easily and moreover 
is clearly what the scholiast read? Τέ. 
δειμαίνουσα dodovs, usually amended to 
φίλους: “ but the o preserved in M can scarcely 
be accidental’ says Mr. Tucker, and writes 
ποιμαίνουσα φόβους : the δ, the ε and the A 
can all be accidental, but not the o. 164. 
κοννῶ δ᾽ ἄγαν γαμετουρανόνεικον : Mr. Tucker 
writes γαμετών τῶν οὐρανοοίκων. It ought of 
course to be γαμετᾶν ; but apart from that, 
in what respect is this conjecture not inferior 
to the yaperas οὐρανόνικον of Victorius? 229. 
οὐδὲ μὴ ᾽ν ἽΔιδου θανὼν | φύγῃ μάταιον αἰτίας 
πράξας τάδε : this is corrupt, but Mr. Tucker’s 
μάταιον αἰτίαν is a conjecture which has no 
excuse for existing: it means the same as 
Tournier’s ματαίους αἰτίας and comes no nearer 
the MS., while Schuetz’s ματαίων αἰτίας is of 
course more probable than either. 271 sq. 
ἔχον δ᾽ ἂν ἤδη tam’ ἐμοῦ τεκμήρια γένος τ᾽ ἂν 
ἐξεύχοιο καὶ λέγοι πρόσως : Robortellus emends 
λέγοις πρόσω : for ἔχον δ᾽ ἂν the second hand 
in M gives yp. ἔχουσαν : now this second hand 
collated M throughout with its original and 
corrected it thence, and pure nonsense like 
ἔχουσαν cannot be a conjecture: we there- 
fore take this for a foothold, write ἔχουσα δ᾽ 
with Heimsoeth, and all is clear. The 
reader now knows how to estimate Mr. 
Tucker’s assertion ‘the correction of these 
lines must start with ἔχον δ᾽ ἂν. It is con- 
trary to all the principles of criticism that 
this should be an error for ἔχουσα δ᾽. ἔχων 
is the only rational correction.’ Then he 
goes on ‘either λέγοι or ἐξεύχοιο 1S wrong, 
and the omission of © from the former is less 
likely than that of T from the latter.’ But 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


no: nothing in the world is more likely than 
the omission of o before z. ‘ Next, what 
τεκμήρια has the king given? He has made 
a statement, but he neither offers nor needs 
to offer proofs.’ First Mr. Tucker mistrans- 
lates τεκμήρια and then declares it corrupt on 
the strength of his mistranslation : it means 
here what it means in Ag. 352, testimony. 
All this leads up to the reading ἔχων δ᾽ ἂν ἤδη 
Tam ἐμοῦ τις ev μέρει | γένος τ᾽ ἂν ἐξεύχοιτο 
καὶ λέγοι τορῶς: and to write ἔχουσα δ᾽ for 
ἔχον δ᾽ ἂν is contrary to all the principles of 
criticism! 502. καὶ ξυμβόλοισιν οὐ πολυστο- 
μεῖν χρεών : Mr. Tucker's κἀν ξυμβολαῖσιν is 
well enough, only Valckenaer’s ξυμβολοῦσιν 
is much better, and Mr. Tucker finds nothing 
to say against It. 515. σὺ καὶ λέγων εὔφραινε 
καὶ πράσσων φρενί: we all read φρένα with 
Heath, against which Mr. Tucker can only 
say that εὔφραινε does not ‘ require’ an object: 
the rest of the note is a conscience-stricken 
apology for the demerits of his own conjec- 
ture xept. 744. ἔπλευσαν ὧδ᾽ ἐπεὶ τάχει κότῳ : 
for these corrupt words Mr. Tucker writes 
ἐπιτυχεῖς σκοποῦ ; but if we enquire why this 
is to be preferred before conjectures so much 
easier and more attractive as Turnebus’ 
ἐπιτυχεῖ κότῳ OY Weil’s ἐπικότῳ τάχει, the only 
reason that can be rendered is Mr. Coventry 
Patmore’s: ‘Say, how has thy Beloved 
surpassed So much all others? She was 
mine.’ 

But to shew what Mr. Tucker can do and 
dare on behalf of his emendations the follow- 
ing example is, as King Pelasgus would say, 
οὐχ ὑπερτοξεύσιμον. In 137 8ηῳ. we read 
τελευτὰς δ᾽ ἐν χρόνῳ πατὴρ ὃ παντόπτας πρευμ- 
ενεῖς κτίσειεν, σπέρμα σεμνᾶς μέγα ματρὸς εὐνὰς 
ἀνδρῶν, ἐέ, ἄγαμον ἀδάματον ἐκφυγεῖν. Mr. 
Tucker objects to μέγα and alters μέγα 
ματρὸς to με δάμαρτος : σεμνᾶς δάμαρτος Means 
the august bride of Zeus, the πατὴρ 
παντόπτας Who has just been mentioned. 
Well, this is very pretty ; but unluckily the 
lines σπέρμα σεμνᾶς κτλ. are iterated at 151 
sqq., Where they are preceded by the mention 
not of Zeus but of Artemis, so that σεμνᾶς 
δάμαρτος will there mean the august bride 
of Artemis, a discouraging result. Mr. 
Tucker’s expedient to avoid this mishap is 
of a sort that strikes criticism dumb. He 
silently prints Δίας instead of σεμνᾶς : not as 
a conjecture, but as if it were the MS 
reading. 

Here I have given proofs enough of the 
disasters which attend us when we desist 
from the pursuit of truth to follow after 
our own inventions. Thus much it was 
necessary to say, because the many students 
who will I hope resort to this edition for 


109 


help and instruction must be warned that 
they will find not only what they seek but also 
a good deal which they are not to believe. 
The book however in spite of its faults is 
the most useful edition of the Supplices we 
have. The purely explanatory part of the 
commentary does not contain very much that 
is absolutely new, and this is well; for it is 
really a far more venturesome thing, if cri- 
tics would but understand it, to propose a new 
rendering than a new reading. Among the 
most interesting notes are those on 189 
ἀγωνίων, 472 ἐκπράξω χρέος, 009 θυμέλαι, 691 
πρόνομα, 1071 δίμοιρον. I mention one or 
two miscellaneous points which are wrong 
or doubtful, not that I think them impor- 
tant but because the editor may like to cor- 
rect or reconsider them. 19: Mr. Tucker 
defends γένος τετέλεσται by Pind. Pyth. ΤΥ 
256, τόθι yap γένος Εὐφάμου φυτευθὲν λοιπὸν 
ἀεὶ τέλλετο : τέλλετο and τετέλεσται however 
do not come from the same verb. 167: 
Mr. Tucker proposes a difficult interpretation 
because he does not observe that δικαίοις 
means fitting. 400: it seems rash to con- 
jecture κἀλλοῖον when this adjective, so com- 
mon in prose, is found in tragedy at one 
place only and makes nonsense there. 503: 
there can be no cause for Mr. Tucker’s ren- 
dering of ἄγοντας unless it be that a con- 
torted interpretation is better than a plain 
one. 534: by what artifice can νέωσον 
evppov’ αἶνον be made to mean νέωσον αἶνον 
ὥστε εὔφρων εἶναι ἡμῖν ἢ 556: Mr. Tucker 
supports his conjecture ἐγκυκλουμένα by Ovid 
met. 1 730 ‘profugam per totum circuit 
orbem’: where did he find this reading and 
how does he construe it? 604: ‘we might 
read ὅτι πληθύεται᾽ : no: a pyrrhic cannot 
constitute the fourth foot of an iambic 
senarius. 924: the suggestion μοι ᾿ξαρνήσεται 
is of course impossible : it is not certain that 
even μοὐξαρνήσεται would be used by Aeschy- 
lus. 1035: Mr. Tucker is here involved in 
some confusion: we have 7p. B coming be- 
fore jp. α΄, and in the note we read of ‘the 
other ἡμιχόριον ’ though we have hitherto had 
no ἡμιχόριον at all. 

The translation is written with vigour and 
adroitness, and its rhythm is often admir- 
able. Here and there, chiefly in the sticho- 
mythia, are crude phrases, and one or two so 
afflicting as‘ horde of males’ for ἄρσενος 
στόλου. παντὶ σθένει in 147 and ἄτερθε 
πτερύγων in 782 are left untranslated ; 
ἐφορεύοι in 627 is very freely rendered ‘ fur- 
ther’; ‘lea αὖ 722 seems meant for ‘lee’ ; 
and at 966 occurs the comical misprint, ‘ for 
thy good deeds mayst thou have thy fill of 
food, Pelasgian lord.’ A. E, Housman. 


110 


DR. 


Dr. Ruruerrory’s contributions to classical 
learning have been marked hitherto by 
striking vigour and originality. The book 
now under review is distinguished no less by 
conspicuous power of generalization, concise- 
ness and force of style, and acuteness of logic. 
But the thesis which he now seeks to estab- 
lish is far more important than any which 
he has yet handled, and has a far wider 
scope than any of his previous works have 
aimed at. Dr. Rutherford will have made 
an epoch in classical learning if he succeeds 
in making good his case. If he is right, 
Thucydides wrote, or may have written, in a 
style as simple and direct as that of Xeno- 
phon ; all the characteristic Thucydideanisms 
are foreign accretions, and should be cut 
away. As we have Thucydides now ‘there 
is hardly a page which does not supply an 
instance of a sentence violating every law of 
a sentence, but still regarded as justifiable 
in Thucydides, who for his great merits of 
another kind is to be forgiven occasional 
lapses into utopian syntax’ (p. xiv). But 
we have not the work of Thucydides as it 
was written, or anything like it. According 
to the editor nearly all the violations of 
normal grammar may be explained on one 
principle. In the text of Thucydides have 
become embedded thousands of the glosses, 
comments, adscripts (to use the general term 
which he employs to include them all) of the 
scholiasts, copyists, ancient critics, and all 
and sundry who have had anything to do 
with his great work. 

Dr. Rutherford does indeed point out (and 
very acutely) certain marked characteristics 
which distinguish the style of Thucydides 
from that of (say) Xenophon. These are, 
broadly : (1) the idiom by which almost any 
verb may in the active be paraphrased by 
ποιεῖσθαι and some substantive expressing 
the action of the verb —an idiom which, 
when its boundaries are somewhat enlarged, 
has a tendency to elude us, and disguise 
itself as grammatical license ; (2) his manage- 
ment of participles ; (3) the frequent use he 
makes of the indirect reflexive pronoun in 
the plural. Moreover he allows that there 
is such a thing as style, such a thing as 
genius modifying language, and giving it the 


1 The Fourth Book of Thucydides, a Revision of the 
Text, illustrating the principal Causes of Corruption 
in the Manuscripts of this Author, by WM. GUNION 
RourHerForp, M.A., LL.D., Head-Master of West- 
minster ; author of the New Phrynichus and editor of 
Babrius. london, Macmillan, 1889. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


RUTHERFORD’S THUCYDIDES, BOOK IV.! 


special impress of a great writer’s mind. 
But nine-tenths of the so-called violations of 
the common law of grammar, which are 
supposed to be characteristic of Thucydides, 
arise, according to the editor, from the fact 
that into the very warp and woof of his 
language, as it has come down to us, has 
been wrought the adscript pattern of the 
copyists and scholiasts. Were it not for this 
his style would be as free from grammatical 
license as that of Plato or Demosthenes. 
Indeed Dr. Rutherford claims for Thucydides 
a singular preciseness in the use of gram- 
matical forms, and illustrates his case by 
some very acute remarks on passages in the 
fourth book. For instance in c. 98 σπένδουσιν 
is defended as an instance of extreme logical 
exactitude, because ‘ one side can only bid the 
other σπένδειν, 1.6. do their part in the 
common ceremony, not σπένδεσθαι, ἐ.6. do the 
part of both.’ So dvaravovres in ὁ. 11 has a 
reason in strict logic, for it is the relieving 
party who make the attack. A like pre- 
cision is claimed for the active ξυνεπῆγον, 
6. 79, and for the reciprocal middle δια- 
κινδυνεύεσθαι, c. 19; and ine. 71 Dr. Ruther- 
ford finds in the word ἐφεδρευόντων an apt 
reference to the ἔφεδρος who sat by in the 
gymnic contests, ready to step in and con- 
tend with the victor. 

How, then, did it come to pass that this - 
most precise of writers thus became the 
victim of a set of circumstances which have 
presented to us as his work something which 
certainly cannot be called precise? Every 
one admits that many adscripts have forced 
their way into the texts of the ancient 
Greek writers, and in Thucydides especially 
numbers have been pointed out by Dobree, 
Krueger, Badham, Herwerden, and above 
all by Cobet. The question which at once 
presents itself is, how did it happen that the 
text of Thucydides suffered so much more 
from this source of corruption than that of 
Xenophon, Demosthenes, or Plato? I cannot 
find any really satisfactory answer to this 
question in Dr. Rutherford’s book. When 
he writes : 

In Thucydides especially this kind of corruption 
has escaped notice more easily because of his un- 
deserved reputation for obscurity and clumsiness of 
expression, 
surely we have here something like that 
form of petitio principii which logicians call 
‘the vicious circle.’ Whence came the un- 
deserved reputation? Was it not from the 
adscripts? But what peculiar power of 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


attracting adscripts had the text of Thucy- 
cides ? 

In his text Dr. Rutherford prints the 
supposed adscripts in uncials in the margin, 
and certainly in a great many instances their 
expulsion from the text is a great improve- 
ment to the style. A good example occurs 
in 126 (I inclose the adscripts in square 
brackets) : γνώσεσθε τὸ λοιπὸν ὅτι ot τοιοῦτοι 
ὄχλοι τοῖς μὲν τὴν πρώτην ἔφοδον δεξαμένοις 
ἄπωθεν [ἀπειλαῖς] τὸ ἀνδρεῖον μελλήσει ἐπι- 
κομποῦσιν, Where ἀπειλαῖς is evidently a gloss 
on μελλήσει used in its thoroughly Thucy- 
didean sense of ‘a demonstration’ of feeling, 
as opposed to action. Again, in the speech 
of Hermocrates, c. 63, he detects a serious 
interpolation of nineteen words from κατ᾽ 
ἀμφότερα to εἰρχθῆναι, and fairly asks com- 
mentators ‘can they honestly render 76 
ἐλλιπὲς εἴργεται into English or any other 
tongue?’ In some cases the interpolation is 
harder to detect because it has undergone 
some change—generally a change of case— 
to enable it to take its place as an integral 
part of the sentence. Inc. 34 all the MSS. 
give αὐτοὶ τῇ τε ὄψει ἱτοῦ θαρσεῖν] τὸ πλεῖστον 
εἰληφότες πολλαπλάσιοι φαινόμενοι. Dobree 
emended πλεῖστον to πιστόν. Dr. Rutherford 
holds that τὸ θαρσεῖν was a gloss on πιστόν, 
which was changed to τοῦ θαρσεῖν to make it 
fit into the sentence. In the same chapter 
ἀποκεκλημένοι τῇ ὄψει [τοῦ προορᾶν] was 
originally ἀποκ. τῆς ὄψεως, but when the 
gloss got into the text τῆς ὄψεως was changed 
to τῇ ὄψει to procure a construction. 

Most interesting are those additamenta 
which are betrayed by the presence in them 
of some idiom unexampled in classical usage 
but prevalent in late Greek. Of these the 
most remarkable are ore ἐπεφεύγει, 133, where 
the pluperf. is used as a simple past, as in 
later Greek; διὰ τὸ περιέχειν αὐτὴν, 102, 
where διὰ must bear its post-classical mean- 
ing of ‘for the purpose of’; so in 40 δι 
ἀχθηδόνα is a gloss because the meaning 
required is not the classical i distress, but 
the post-classical to cause annoyance ; and in 
67 διὰ τῆς τάφρου is foreign matter because 
the context requires for διὰ the late meaning 
of by or along. With like certainty we may 
reject the adscript in 120, περὶ δὲ τὰς ἡμέρας 
ταύτας [ais ἐπήρχοντο] because ‘even if 
Thucydides may have used ἐπήρχοντο, so far 
as form goes, he undoubtedly no more used 
it in the late sense of discuss than he used 
διὰ in the late sense of to cause and along.’ 

Dr. Rutherford even gives us marks 
whereby we may detect the intruder into 
the text. A very common way of intro- 
ducing a marginal or interlinear note is by 


151} 


a relative pronoun, adverb, or conjunction, 
either simple or (far more commonly) com- 
pounded with περ. Suspect a clause beginning 
ὅπερ, ὥσπερ, οἷσπερ, ἵναπερ. Thus in 48 
ἵναπερ τὸ πρῶτον ὥρμηντο Should be expelled 
from the text, not corrected by a change of 
ἵναπερ to ἔνθαπερ or οἵπερ. 

Sometimes the adscript gets into the wrong 
sentence, or the wrong part of a sentence, 
as in 66, ot δὲ φίλοι τῶν ἔξω τὸν θροῦν 
αἰσθόμενοι φανερῶς [μᾶλλον ἢ πρότερον] καὶ 
αὐτοὶ ἠξίουν κιτ.λ., Where the adscript really 
belongs to the following sentence, γνόντες οὐ 
δυνατὸν τὸν δῆμον ἐσόμενον. 

It is a pity that Dr. Rutherford almost 
completely confines himself to the limits of 
Bk. IV. in illustrating his theories. One 
would have been glad to know whether he 
regards as a gloss the οὐ in μᾶλλον ἢ οὐ, 
where it is apparently redundant, as in 
μᾶλλον ἢ ov τοὺς αἰτίους, IIT. 36. It is very 
interesting to read Thucydides afresh and 
watch for places where Dr. Rutherford would 
resort to excision. One feels at once a 
bloodthirsty desire to wield the weapon he 
has put into our hands; we cry φονᾷ φονᾷ 
νόος ἤδη, and we see everywhere τομῶντα 
πήματα to which we will keene no incanta- 
tions. To take Pericles’s speech in the second 
book, I fancy Dr. Rutherford would cer- 
tainly expel from the very beginning of it, 
c. 35, ἀγορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν and πιστευθῆναι, and 
probably αὐτῶν after ὑπερβάλλοντι. 1 would 
infer from the same speech, c. 39, that 
Dr. Rutherford goes too far when he says 
‘the text of Thucydides is dotted over with 
Λακεδαιμόνιοι and ᾿Αθηναῖοι in every case 
and every construction, none of which he 
ever wrote.’ If the scholiasts and copyists 
were so prone to append these names by way 
of explanatory comment, why do they not 
always append them? In ec. 39, if any- 
where, we should have expected οἱ Λακεδαι- 
μόνιοι to have crept into the sentence οἱ μὲν 
ἐπιπόνῳ ἀσκήσει εὐθὺς νέοι ὄντες τὸ ἀνδρεῖον 
μετέρχονται, for surely no one will believe 
that any person capable of writing any com- 
ment at all could fail to see that the refer- 
ence here is to the Lacedaemonians, and yet 
the addition of the name would certainly 
add to the clearness and antithesis of the 
passage. 

I fear that if we apply Dr. Rutherford’s 
knife impartially in pruning away from the 
text what is ungrammatical according to 
normal usage, we shall find that many of the 
finest things in Thucydides will vanish. The 
following is a passage, II. 53, than which 
there are few more impressive in Thucydides : 
θεῶν δὲ φόβος ἢ ἀνθρώπων νόμος οὐδεὶς ἀπεῖργε; 


112 


τὸ μὲν κρίνοντες ἐν ὁμοίῳ καὶ σέβειν καὶ μὴ; ἐκ 
τοῦ πάντας ὁρᾷν ἐν ἴσῳ ἀπολλυμένους, τῶν δὲ 
ἁμαρτημάτων οὐδεὶς ἐλπίζων μέχρι τοῦ δίκην 
γενέσθαι βιοὺς ἂν τὴν τιμωρίαν ἀντιδοῦναι, πολὺ 
δὲ μείζω τὴν ἤδη κατεψηφισμένην σφῶν ἐπι- 
κρεμασθῆναι, ἢν πρὶν ἐμπεσεῖν, εἰκὸς εἶναι τοῦ 
βίου τι ἀπολαῦσαι. It will be seen that we 
are at once confronted with a glaring viola- 
tion of the strict laws of construction—a 
most characteristic Thucydideanism. At 
first sight the passage seems to illustrate 
most forcibly Dr. Rutherford’s theory. The 
κρίνοντες Clause and the οὐδεὶς ἐλπίζει clause 
are those which interrupt the construction 
and mar the grammar. The one would be a 
most apt explanatory note on θεῶν φόβος and 
the other on ἀνθρώπων νόμος. But where are 
we to stop? These supposed adscripts are 
inextricably bound up with what follows. 
We must refer to the commentator the whole 
sentence down to ἀπολαῦσαι, and the result 
is that by far the most memorable senti- 
ment in the whole chapter belongs, not to 
Thucydides, but to the scholiast. I can 
think of only three ways in which Dr. 
Rutherford could meet the difficulty thus 
raised. He may maintain that the theory 
of the adscript is here inapplicable ; but it 
seems to fit the passage toa nicety. Or he 
may show that the words of the comment 
may be disentangled from those of Thucydides 
without carrying away with them most of 
that to which the passage owes its glow and 
strength; but in the present case this seems to 
me to be impossible. Or finally, he may hold 
the theory that among the many scholiasts 
there may have been one or two capable of 
rising to the height of feeling and expression 
required by such a sentence as πολὺ δὲ μείζω 
τὴν ἤδη κατεψηφισμένην, κιτιλ. He may hold 
that there may have beena scholiast capable 
of doing for the text of Thucydides what 
Carlyle has done for the letters and speeches 
of Cromwell, capable of emphasizing and 
enhancing the beauties of the expression, and 
deepening and elevating the train of thought. 
Then I ask where are the writings of this 
KapAvAvos? How did this genius content 
himself with the humble labours of a com- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


mentator when he possessed original faculty 
of so high an order? I believe there never 
was a scholiast capable of conceiving or ex- 
pressing this sentiment, though considera- 
tions of grammar only would point to it as 
an undoubted scholiastic comment. 

Dr. Rutherford’s work teems with evi- 
dences of his high and deep scholarship, and 
with instructive and suggestive comments on 
Greek usage. He has embodied in his text 
many acute conjectures of recent scholars,! 
and several of his own, which, though as a 
rule quite convincing, yet deal with such 
minute points that it would not be very in- 
teresting to record them here. He has un- 
doubtedly detected many adscripts which 
have eluded the vigilance of even Cobet 
himself, and has thus proved that the text 
of Thucydides has suffered more than has 
been hitherto suspected from this particular 
source of corruption. When he writes 
(p. XXvil.) :-— 

His style is simple but powerful, a fitting weapon 
for a vigorous understanding dealing in an unaffected 
way with events and the lessons to be derived from 
them, 
it seems to me that he has not yet succeeded 
in showing that we may fairly call the style 
of Thucydides simple. We shall be able to 
pronounce a more decided opinion when he 
deals with the question more at large—as I 
hope he will—and takes his illustrations 
from the whole work of Thucydides. One 
feels however that it would be unfair to ᾿ 
claim the immediate performance of so large 
a task from one who is the Head Master of 
a great public school, and who has already 
begun to turn the sod of another new wide 
and fertile field of philological labour, 

R. Y. TYRRELL. 


1 There are two conjectures by the Editor of this 
Review published in the Journal of Philology, vol. vii. 
p. 234, which might well have found a place among 
these. For προσέλαντες in iv. 7 Professor Mayor 
would read προσειλήσαντες, ‘having penned up,’ 
which he defends by comparing Hom. J. x. 347, 
Eur. Hel. 445; and for σκαιότητα (al. νεότητα), ib. 
80, he conjectures σκληρότητα, a word which ex- 
presses ‘the unconquerable determination and stiff- 
neckedness of the Helots.’ 


COUAT’S ARISTOPHANES AND THE ANCIENT ATTIC COMEDY. 


Aristophane et ancienne Comédie Attique, par 
A. Couat, Recteur de |’ Académie de Lille: 
Paris, 1889. 


THosE who have read M. Couat’s tude 
sur Catulle and his Poésie alexandrine sous 


les trois premiers Ptolémées will expect much 
pleasure and instruction froma work by the 
same hand on the great Athenian wit. And 
they will not be disappointed. A French 
scholar has perhaps peculiar advantages in 
dealing with the genius who from one point 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


of view suggests Rabelais and from another 
Moliére. But M. Couat does not seek to 
gain for his work an adventitious attractive- 
ness by reading the past into the present, or 
the present into the past. ‘Athénes,’ he 
writes, ‘n’est pas la France, et en cherchant 
parmi nos écrivains, je n’y vois pas un 
Aristophane.’ In the introduction he traces 
the rise and growth of comedy. In the 
subsequent two books consisting of seven 
chapters he deals with the materials which the 
comic poets found ready to their hands. This 
comprises of course gurequid agunt homines ; 
and hence the work is nothing less than a 
study of Athenian life during the period of 
the Old Comedy from B.c. 446 to 392— 
its institutions, public men, social questions, 
religion, education, and manners. In learn- 
ing the writer is quite abreast of modern 
scholarship, and he has his full share of that 
charm of style which seems to be the birth- 
right of every Frenchman whatever be the 
subject of his essay. Especially brilliant is 
his description of the fierce struggle for 
literary existence at Athens in the time of 
Aristophanes. The poets were innumerable. 
The chances of getting the public ear were 
few. It was a triumph even to obtain a 
hearing for one’s work. To be known at all 
a poet must be among the first poets of his 
time—entre la lumiére éclatante du thédtre de 
Dionysus et Vobscurité profonde il n’y avait 
pas dintermédiaire. The relations between 
Aristophanes and Euripides are touched inci- 
dentally with much originality and clearness. 
M. Couat regards the Aristophanic attack 
on Kuripides as but an episode in the war 
against Socrates and the Sophists; an 
ancient comic poet called the tragedies of 
Euripides σωκρατογόμφους. Of the stage of 
Euripides, as satirised by Aristophanes, 
with its lame and ragged kings, poor but 
fluent, M. Couat writes, c’est la cour des 
Miracles des héros. Before Euripides 
Tragedy had to do only with the grand 
adventures and the dignified sufferings of 
heroes and heroines; he enlarged it to 
embrace the troubles of every-day life and 
the loves and jealousies of ordinary women. 
The women of Sophocles suffer, those of 
Kuripides souffrent. ΝΜ. Couat sums up the 
influence of Kuripides on Tragedy in a 
delightfully French expression, avec Luripide 
les événements tragiques ne se passent plus dans 
un palais, mais dans un alcéve. But he is 
far from adopting the views of Aristophanes 

1 Some verses preserved from the Melanippe appear 
to contain the retort of Euripides on his persistent 
assailant (frag. 495, Nauck). 

NO. XXXI. VOL. IV. 


113 


on this subject. It must be remembered 
that in the time of Aeschylus, and for the 
first fifty years of the life of Sophocles, prose 
was unknown at Athens. ‘The first play of 
Euripides of which we know the date was 
produced when the poet was forty-two years 
of age, and when prose had come to Athens 
with the Sophists, and the reign of King 
Logos was beginning.” With them came ina 
tendency towards introspection and analysis, 
and Euripides saw how powerfully this grow- 
ing taste might be appealed to by remodelling 
the method of Tragedy. Hitherto there had 
been no such thing as the analysis of human 
passion in poetry. Homer had told us how 
the love of Helen for Paris had been the 
cause of the Trojan war. We had read how 
the passion of Haemon for Antigone had 
precipitated the doom of the House of Lab- 
dacus, and how the lewdness of Clytaem- 
nestra brought ruin on the Atreids. We 
had seen the work of Aphrodite at her 
terrible play,? but neither Homer nor 
Aeschylus nor Sophocles analysed the passion, 
or observed its symptoms. Euripides was the 
first who saw that the passion of love was 
worth watching for itself. Noone will now 
hesitate to admit that the bounds of Tragedy 
were widened when Medea and Phaedra 
walked the stage, or will sympathise with 
the boast which Aristophanes puts into the 
mouth of Aeschylus—that no one can say he 
ever brought a love-sick woman into his 
plays.* 

The whole debate between Aeschylus and 
Euripides in the /rogs has now for us ἃ new 
and special interest, because it resolves 
itself to a great extent into a question which 
is now agitating our critics—how far realism 
is reconcilable with art. When Aeschylus 
condemns the portrayal of the foul passions 
of Phaedra and Sthenoboea, Euripides 
triumphantly asks, ‘ But do not the passions 
exist?’ The same plea is still urged by the 
defenders of Zola’s minute details in descrip- 
tion of misery, profligacy and filth. The 
discussion is often closed by the argument 
that it is the province of Art not to teach, 
but to please. This would not end the 
debate between Euripides and Aeschylus, 
for they agree that it is the duty of Art ‘ to 
make men better.’ 

The reader will receive with interest the 
judgmenton this question of the distinguished 
scholar to whom we owe the present treatise: 


2 Frag. 170 (Nauck). 
3 ἄμαχος yap ἐμπαίζει θεὸς ᾿Αφροδίτα, Soph. Ant. 
4 οὐδ᾽ οἶδ᾽ οὐδεὶς ἥντιν᾽ ἐρῶσαν πώποτ᾽ ἐποίησα γυν- 
αἴκα, Ran. 1044. 
I 


114 


we commend it to M. Zola: ‘le public a 
plus de plaisir aux fictions qui l’élévent, qu’ 
aux réalités qui le degradent. L’Art, sans 


TWO EDITIONS 


Andocidis Orationes edidit Tustus HERMANN 
Liesius; pp. xxxii, 67. Β. Tauchnitz, 
Leipzig, 1888. Μ. 1. 20. 


Tur interest felt in the announcement that 
an edition of Andocides was in preparation 
by the reviser of Der Attische Process was 
somewhat tempered by the knowledge that 
the work would be purely critical. The 
fact that no satisfactory explanatory edition 
of this author had ever been written mde 
it all the more desirable that the entire field 
should first be covered by a scholar who had 
given proofs of his competence to deal with 
the general subject. 

The editor however gives a very valuable 
introduction on the life and writings of An- 
docides, where in copious notes the reader is 
referred to the sources, ancieut and modern, 
upon which he bases his judyments. His ar- 
gument against the genuineness of the so- 
called Fourth Oration is a most powerful one, 
and further proof will scarcely be needed that 
it is the work of a late rhetorician. His 
belief that the pseudo-Lysian oration against 
Andocides was a similar exercise, and not a 
contemporary argument in court, will hardly 
yet find such general acceptance. He 
promises an article on the subject, but Lam 
not aware that it has appeared. Upon the 
critical apparatus of this edition it is not 
necessary to enlarge here, although it is dis- 
tinctly the most valuable part of the book. 
The spelling is based throughout upon the 
combined resu.ts gleaned from Attic con- 
temporary inscriptions which are certainly 
better authority for spelling than the most 
careful copyist of the Middle Ages, and we 
must accordingly expect to find the latter 
give place in our newer texts of the authors. 
Such emendations as are due to the editor, 
except mere verbal corrections based upon 
the new collations of MSS., havein the main 
already appeared in his contributions to 
German periodical literature, and are there- 
fore known to readers. But we are given 
also a collation of the suggestions and cor- 
rections of other scholars, most conscienti- 
ously gathered and destined to be of great 
helpfulness. On the whole, this edition, in 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


cesser d’avoir le plaisir pour but, le cherchera 
plutdt dans la transfiguration que dans la 
copie de la réalité.’ 

R. Y. TyRReE.L. 


OF ANDOCIDES. 


spite of a number of emendations which 
have elsewhere met with criticism, may be 
safely recommended as the most useful 
to the critical student which has ever 
appeared. 


Andocidis de Mysteriis et de Reditu ; edited 
by E. C. Marcuant, B.A., late scholar of 
Peterhouse, Cambridge; Assistant Master 
at St. Paul’s School. Rivingtons, London, 
1889. 5s. 


Mr. Marcuant’s text, also, is preceded by 
an essay on the life of Andocides and by a 
full analysis of the two orations. The his- 
torical circumstances are ably treated with 
fair references to authorities. At the end 
of the book there is an appendix on the 
connexion of Andocides with the Hermes 
affair. In this, Mr. Marchant concludes 
that Andocides had fully intended to take 
part in the business. So far he is probably 
right, but what about the reasons he assigns _ 
for the inaction of Andocides ἢ ‘ His absence 
was due to scruples at the last minute, or to 
the fear of detection.’ To believe this, it is 
necessary to discredit the whole of Andocides’ 
description of the affair as given in Myst. ὃ 
61 sq. Mr. Marchant thinks that he is justi- 
fied in disbelieving all the statements in the 
later oration by the admissions made in the 
earlier (de Reditu, § 7), which he interprets 
as a declaration of guilt ; he avoids stating, 
however, whether he believes that Andocides 
was really an actor in the crime or not. I 
think that the statements in the two orations 
may be partly, although not wholly, recon- 
ciled. We are not obliged to believe from 
de Red. § 7 that the speaker is confexsing 
participation in the actual mutilation of the 
Hermae. Perhaps he means only to say 
that he was in the plot and had intended to 
take part in its execution. He was thus in 
a position to inform against the actual 
criminals and at the same time to clear 
himself from the act of crime, although he 
does not try to avoid the charge of being to 
some extent implicated in it. He doubtless 
expected complete indemnity, and indeed 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


got it for a time, but the decree of Isotimides 
was sweeping enough to cover his case, and 
he went into exile. The story about the 
fall from his horse is too natural and too 
easily refutable to be a lie; not so his 
statement that he refused altogether to 
share the plot. This may fairly be dis- 
credited, and one may think that Euphiletos 
was ignorant of this accident and expected 
Andocides to do his part. I should there- 
fore reject only the latter’s statement that he 
refused to join the plot and that Euphiletos 
knew it. His absence, then, on the event- 
ful night would be due to his accident, and 
not to scruples, least of all, in such a man, 
to fear. ‘This explanation may reconcile 
perhaps the statement of Thucydides (vi. 60) 
that Andocides gave evidence against him- 
self. However, I do not feel as anxious as 
some commentators over any apparent con- 
tradiction of Andocides by Thucydides. The 
historian, it will be remembered, left Athens 
eight years before the Hermes affair and 
could not have returned till eleven years 
after it. In so complicated a matter it 
would be difficult for any one, not actually 
on the ground, to know the exact details. 
Thucydides himself admits that nobody had 
ever been able to be sure about them. It 
is rather surprising that Mr. Marchant, who 
seems to realize (pp. 127 and 136) the 
untrustworthiness of Thucydides in two 
particulars, should elsewhere (pp. 35 and 
178) accept his evidence with little question. 
Mr. Marchant is perhaps nearer the truth 
in other places (pp. 11 and 22) and when 
he says (p. 6) ‘Andocides gave evidence 
incriminating himself and others,’ but even 
‘incriminating’ appears to me scarcely the 
proper word in this connexion. But after 
all that has been written on this vexed sub- 
ject, we are as far as ever from the last 
word, 

Mr, Marchant is familiar with the work of 
Lipsius along the lines of legal antiquities, 
and treats fully of legal matters as far as 
they fall within his subject. Perhaps 
teachers would have been better satisfied 
with fuller references to the sources. It 
is rather unfortunate that all the references 
to Lipsius’ Attische Process should be by 
sections, the fact being that Mr. Marchant 
has taken for sections the paye-numbers of 
the old edition found on the margin of the 
new. This is frequently confusing, especially 
on p. 155, where the reference should read 
Att. Proc. p. 900, note 383. The page-num- 
bers of Stephanus are omitted. They should 
always be given as long as Liddell and Scott 
continue to quote by them. 


115 


Not much grammatical comment is at- 
tempted, but what appears is as a rule 
founded upon acquaintance with the general 
subject and with the habits of this particu- 
lar orator. Ina very useful note on Myst. 
$10 the reference to Kiihner should read 
423 C. On ὃ 30 we are given some sound 
doctrine on δῆλον ὅτι. Just above, in the 
same section, Mr. Marchant reads with 
Blass ἡγήσεσθε, where Lipsius has allowed 
the unnecessary ἡγήσαισθες In his note on 
δ΄ 21 the proper reference to Professor 
Goodwin’s M. and. 7. is § 49, 2, N 3, (ὁ), 
although § 44, 3 may also be compared. In 
the de Red. ὃ 16 my feeling is that the 
notion of possibility, so prominent in ὅδόν τε 
καὶ πόρον, takes away any ‘harshness’ from 
the following infinitive. In his translations 
the editor is correct enough, bnt not always 
idiomatic. There is here and there the 
especial weakness of rendering a long Greek 
sentence, composed of many subordinate 
clauses, into a correspondingly long one in 
English (cf. p. 126). 

The comments on two passages may be 
mistaken. In Myst. § 41 Leagoras was not 
represented as supposing that Dioclides had 
come to ‘join the plot,’ but to listen to pro- 
posals of the conspirators that he should 
keep quiet about it. In § 132 we read ‘of 
course μυῶν does not mean A. himself per- 
formed the rites, but he paid the expenses.’ 
The first part of this is right, for A. was 
nothing but μυσταγωγός, but what were the 
expenses? The μυσταγωγός, as 1 know him, 
merely presented the candidate, and, himself 
an initiate, took charge of the latter as a sort 
of ‘Mentor’ during his initiation. Do we 
know anything of initiation fees? Mr. 
Marchant wisely refrains from saying much 
about so dark a subject as the Mysteries ; 
he might well have omitted his quotation on 
δ 31 from C. R. Kennedy. ‘Solemn revela- 
tions’ looks too much like a reference to a 
fancied expounding of doctrines. Lobeck 
exploded the notion that any preaching was 
done at Eleusis. 

In the matter of spelling the editor 
wisely follows Lipsius, and goes even further 
in the right path when he prints τοῖν for 
ταῖν (Myst. § 144). We have long been 
warned in grammars of the feminine dual of 
the article ; it utterly disappeared from F. 
D. Allen’s edition of Hadley, but it still 
survives in a few passages in the authors as 
printed. 

In the critical notes the editor’s system 
seems to have been to present only the colla- 
tion of those passages wherein Blass and 
Lipsius differ, and to state which of them he 

12 


Ε10 


himself has followed. In 77]γ8ὲ. δ 4 the emen- 
dation attributed to Lipsius was made by 
Képke in 1864 except for the spelling duped. 
Realizing the danger of emending according 
to stereotyped rules so easy-going a writer 
as Andocides, the editor is very conservative. 
His restoration of the MS. reading de Red. ὃ 
22 seems sound, and also his transposition of 
χρήσασθαι in Myst. § 86. The correction of 
ταῖν χεροῖν (Myst. ὃ 144, by a misprint 
referred on p. iv. to§ 141) has already been 
mentioned. In § 153 his change to the aorist 
seems unnecessary, although it might be 
accepted in the case of a more exact writer. 
In ὃ 12, for τὸ μειράκιον ὃ Mr. Marchant 
reads ὃν, on the ground that an Attic ear 
would not bear the neuter. It is true that 
the natural gender prevails in such cases, 
yet we have a neuter with μειράκιον in Anti- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


phon Zetral. By, ὃ 10, and in Plat. Prot. 
315 D, side by side with the masculine ; cf. 
315 ἘΞ Neither of these examples is an 
exact parallel, but after all who shall decide 
on the nicety of the ear of Andocides ? 

The remarks here made are by no means 
written with a wish to detract from the just 
dues of so meritorious a book as the one 
before us. Every one must be grateful to 
Mr. Marchant for giving English and 
American readers an excellent practical 
edition of an author who has been too long 
neglected ; for his fairness in stating both 
side of disputed questions, his clearness in 
summing up results, and the modesty with 
which he differs from the more dogmatic 
utterances of some of his predecessors, 

Morris H. Moraay. 
Harvard University. 


COLERIDGE’S TRANSLATION OF APOLLONIUS RHODIUS. 


The Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius 
translated into English prose from the text 
of R. Merxert by Epwarp P. CoLeripGE 
B.A. George Bell & Sons, 1889. 5s. 


THERE are in English three poetical or rather 
verse translations of Apoll. Rhod. by 
Fawkes, Greene, and Preston respectively, 
more or less near the original, but it is 
certainly time that there should be a prose 
translation, and so the present one is wel- 
come. The interest of the poem at the 
present day is mainly literary, not to say 
philological, and apart from the Greek the 
story of the Golden Fleece as told by 
Apollonius will not attract many readers. 

The present translation though it cannot 
be compared to the best of Bohn’s, such as 
Dale’s Thucydides or Kennedy’s Demosthenes, 
is yet above the average and may be con- 
sidered adequate. At the same time it 
bears many marks of haste and some of the 
errors I shall presently point out seem to 
be due solely to that cause. ‘The translation 
is from the Teubner text of 1852 based on 
the Laurentian MS. In the next year came 
out Merkel’s larger edition which contains 
many improvements over the ed. min. Mr. 
Coleridge apparently adopts the theory that 
Apollonius should be translated in an archaic 
style. J have nothing to say against such a 
theory, indeed much may be said for it, but 
it is not carried out by writing in a modern 
style and interspersing archaic words and 


phrases. The archaism should lie rather in 
the structure of the sentences than in single 
words. Thus we find such scattered gems as 
‘astonied,’ ‘God wot,’ ‘I wis,’ ‘swinked,’ 
‘an’ (=if), ‘took up his parable’ ( = replied) 
‘or ever,’ ‘ yestreen,’ &c. ‘ Unbeknown to thy 
father’ may be archaic, but its associations 
are rather with Mrs. Gamp, and ‘for to. 
behold’ is a vulgarism now at any rate. 
Mr. Coleridge has a sufficient vocabulary at 
his command and can use it with effect, e.g. 
TV. 152 ‘like a dark wave dumb and noise- 
less rolling o’er a sluggish sea.’ Alliteration 
is no stranger to him, as ‘a flash as of flame 
from the flashing of the fleece.’ The passage 
of the Symplegades II. 551 foll. is very 
well rendered on the whole. It is rarely we 
find such an awkward sentence as ‘ what 
time, alone and apart from the other chiefs, 
he routed them’ &e., but why will he always 
write Lolchos 1? 

The translation is prefaced by a short 
notice of the life of Apollonius in which the 
date of his birth is given as ‘about B.C. 
235.’ I should have thought this to be a 
misprint, if it were not that Smith’s Dic- 
tionary of Biography gives the same date. 
Though the precise year of Apollonius’ birth 
is uncertain, the limits of deviation are 
narrow and Ritschl’s date of Ol. 126 (276-273 
B.c.) is probably correct. I will now notice 
more particularly some points in the trans- 
lation and notes which require correction. 
I. 438 ‘Now on that day were his limbs 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


weighed down with wine.’ There is nothing 
about wine in the Greek, which is τότ᾽ αὖ 
βαρύθεσκέ οἱ ἤδη | γυῖα and means of course 
‘heavy with age,’ and then comes the usual 
antithesis between age of body and youth- 
fulness of spirit. 368 ἔζωσαν πάμπρωτον 
ἐυστρεφεῖ ἔνδοθεν ὅπλῳ ‘they lashed the ship 
stoutly with a well-twisted cable from 
within.’ ‘From within’ is nonsense. The 
ὑπόζωμα is meant and we should probably 
read ἔκτοθεν : at any rate some emendation is 
necessary. 1110 ἤρεσαν és λιμένα Θρηίκιον (note) 
‘It isclear that the heroes did not sail across 
to Thrace because Mt. Dindymus is a con- 
siderable distance inland in Galatia, and it 
was hither they meant to come.’ The Mt. 
Dindymus here meant is that at Cyzicus, as 
is clear from 985 sup. 1277 ὕψι δὲ νηὸς | 

εὐναίας ἐρύσαντες ἀνεκρόυσαντο κάλωας ‘and 
they hauled in the anchor ropes of the ship 
and backed her out.’ εὐναίας is a noun = 
εὐνάς, and if it were an adj. could not agree 
with κάλωας masc. Without some emenda- 
tion, such as εὐναίους, it is not easy to see 
the meaning of ἀν. κάλ. Schol. Laur. ex- 
plains προσέκρουσαν τῇ νηὶ τὰ σχοινία τῆς 
ἀγκύρας διὰ τὸ βεβρέχθαι. In a note it is 
said ‘The ancient mode of landing was to 
beach the shipif possible and then fasten by 
cables to the land, and by anchors from the 
stern in the sea.’ This is the exact opposite 
of the fact. The Homeric mode of landing, 
as ‘every schoolboy’ knows, is to fasten the 
stern by cables (πρυμνήσια) to the land, and 
to steady the ship by large stones (civa/) 
used as anchors, cast out from the prow, cf. 
A 436, +137 and Apoll. Rhod. IT. 160. II. 
163 (note) ‘The Therapnaean son of Zeus, 
z.e. Apollo, so called from Therapnae, a part 
of Sparta, which was sacred to this god.’ 
So Schol., but more probably Polydeuces, 
is meant who had just conquered Amycus, 
Therapnae being the birthplace of the 
Dioscuri. 592 ὅσσον δ᾽ ἂν ὑπείκαθε νηῦς 
ἐρέτῃσιν, δὶς τόσον ἂψ ἀπόρουσεν. ‘So she 
sprang forward twice as far as any other 
ship would have yielded to rowers’ (!), 
literally ‘but as far as the ship yielded to 
the rowers it leapt backwards twice as far’ 
1.6. through the force of the waves. The 
difficulty is to assign any meaning to ἄν: 
hence some (Brunck and Beck) read παρείκαθε 
with an inferior MS. 1064 (note) ‘ ἄρσετε 
Tonic fut. from ἀραρίσκω ᾿ : more probably aor. 
imper. like Homeric οἴσετε. III. 1 (note) 
“Ἐρατώ the Muse of Dancing...As this third 
book is to relate Jason’s wooing and winning 
of Medea, there is a certain appropriateness 
in an address to the Muse who presided over 
such festivities as were customary at wed- 


ἘΠῚ 


dings.” The Muses were invoked quite in- 
differently by the poets, as eg. by Horace, 
and the introduction of Erato is clearly due 
to the play on ἔρως : see l. 5 τῷ καί τοι ἐπήρατον 
οὔνομ᾽ ἀνῆπται, Which is imitated by Ovid (Am. 
11. 16) Nune Erato, nam tu nomen amoris 
habes. Moreover, if we assign separate 
functions to the Muses, Erato is not the 
Muse of Dancing but of Erotic poetry and 
so strictly in place here. 206 ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀδεψ- 
ἤτοισι κατειλύσαντε βοείαις κιτιλ. ‘but two 
men must roll them up in hides untanned’ 
etc. and note ‘it is difficult to believe that 
Apollonius wrote the dual.’ It is probable 
that Ap. here uses the dual for the plural in 
imitation of Zenodotus, so in I. 384. 613 
‘lest haply he should win her over in vain... 
or lest if she consented to his prayer’ ete. 
The subject of μειλίξαιτο is not Argos but 
Chalciope ; ἀτυζομένην and ἑσπομένης both 
refer to Medea. 988 ὑμείων cannot mean 
merely ‘thee,’ but alludes to Hecate and 
Zeus as well as to Medea. 1018 τῆς δ᾽ ἀμαρυγὰς 
 ὀφθαλμών ἥρπαζεν ‘snatched bright glances 
from her eyes’ : rather ‘ snatched (¢.e. captiv- 
ated) her sparkling eyes,’ cf. rapere ocellos. 
1025 φράζεο viv ὥς κέν τοι κιτιλ. not ‘ that Τ 
may devise’ but ‘how I shall devise.’ 1058 
‘but be not thyself eager for the fray,’ strike 
out not which is probably a slip. 1092 
(note) ‘The isle of Aea was a small island 
in the river Phasis in which the golden fleece 
was kept.’ Not at all: the isle of Aea here 
meant 1s the abode of Circe in the West, as is 
clear from sup. 1073. 1104 συνημοσύνας 
ἀλεγύνειν ‘to heed the ties of kin.’ No: ‘to 
heed compacts (or agreements).’ 1116 
ἀπροφάτως means not ‘openly’ but ‘ unex- 
pectedly.” 1118 ὑποβλήδην προσέειπεν not 
‘caught her up and said’ but ‘said in 
answer.’ This is always the meaning of ὑπ. 
in Apollonius. 1137 ἐδεύετο δ᾽ ἤματος ὥρη | 

ay οἷκόνδε νέεσθαι κιτ.λ. ‘for the time of day 
demanded the maiden’s return home’ ete. 
This cannot be correct : édévero is here used 
absolutely as in Y 122, lit. ‘ the time of day 
was wanting (or failing) for her toreturn’ ete. 
1285 παρὰ δ᾽ ὄβριμον “ἔγχος ἔπηξεν Ι ὀρθὸν 
ἐπ᾽ οὐριάχῳ ‘and fixed his strong sword up- 
right to the hilt hard by.’ ἔγχος is spear not 
sword-—in IV 223 it is again mistranslated 
sword—and ἐπ οὐριάχῳ means ‘upon the 
butt-end’ which was furnished with a spike. 
1298 (note) ‘the ydavos is the mould into 
which the liquid metal is poured for casting.’ 
The x. is the smelting-furnace, or perhaps 
melting-pot, as it is translated in the text. 
1334 λαῖον ἐπὶ στιβαρῷ πιέσας ποδί “ pressing 
down the left stilt with heavy heel.’ This is 
nonsense. λαῖον 15 a rare word meaning 


118 


ploughshare. Jason presses his foot on it to 
make it go deeper into the ground as plough- 
men often do nowadays. 1385 ἀμφ᾽ οὔροισιν 
ἐγειρομένου πολέμοιο not ‘upon his boundaries’ 
but ‘concerning boundaries,’ which were a 
frequent subject of strife. IV. 16 τάρβει 
means not ‘terrified’ but ‘was afraid of.’ 
24 ‘poured from the casket all her drugs at 
once into the folds of her bosom.’ No one 
would think that the Greek describes exactly 
the opposite action, viz. the pouring of the 
drugs from her bosom into the chest. 78 
ἠπείροιο not ‘mainland’ but ‘shore,’ as often. 
304 Πόντοιο not ‘into Pontus’ but ‘ out of 
Pontus,’ probably a slip. 337 μέσφα with 
gen. not ‘between’ but ‘as far as to’ and 
Νέστιδος αἴης, which is described in the note 
as meaning Thrace from the river Nestus, 
really means a part of Illyria and has no 
connexion with the Thracian river of that 
name, cf. inf. 1213 Neoratovs. 379 pe μάλ᾽ 
εὐκλειής ; ‘will not my fame be passing fair 4’ 
dele ‘not.’ 436 θελγέμεν, εὖτ᾽ ἂν πρῶτα θεᾶς 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


περὶ νηὸν ἵκηται | συνθεσίῃ... | ἐλθέμεν “50 as 
to persuade them to depart, as soon as 
Absyrtus came by agreement’ &c. So Wellauer, 
but rather ‘to persuade him (Absyrtus) to 
come as soon as she (Medea) came’ ἄς. 501 
ῥηιδίη δέ Kev ἄμμι... | ἤ τ᾽ (or ἥ δ᾽) εἴη μετέπειτα 
κατερχομένοισι κέλευθος *’twill be an easy 
route for us or indeed for any who come 
hither hereafter.’ Not so; with 7 δέ, κατ. 
refers back to ἄμμι, with 77 to the Colchians. 
530 περόωντι κατὰ χρέος not ‘in obedience to 
an oracle’ but, as Beck translates, ‘ negotii 
sui causa.’ 552 περιώσια σήματα νηός ‘ Argo’s 
wondrous pennon’ probably means figure- 
head or some other ornament, see inf. 1618. 
578 (note) ‘ Hera brought them by contrary 
winds to the island of Electra, in order that 
Jason and Medea might there be purified by 
Circe.’ Not the island of Electra, but the 
island or rather promontory of Circe is where 
they were purified, inf. 659. 705 δέρην 
is translated ‘skin’ as if it were δορήν. 
R. C. Seaton. 


OWEN’S EDITION OF THE 7RISTIA. 


P. Ovidi Nasonis Tristium Libri V. 
Recensuit 8. G. Owen. Oxford. Claren- 
don Press. 1889. pp. cxili+ 271. 16s. 


ΤΉΟΒΕ who, after reading Mr. Owen’s small 
edition of the first book of the Zristia pub- 
lished a few years back, looked for some 
more elaborate work on Ovid from his pen, 
will certainly not be disappointed in the 
volume before us. His new book is a model 
of sound criticism, laborious research and 
orderly arrangement; and in every way a 
real honour to English scholarship. Mr. 
Owen has collated nearly thirty manuscripts 
of the Z’ristia, and has consulted or secured 
collations of several others. He also gives 
the readings of seven deflorationes and tour- 
teen old editions. So we are furnished with 
a splendid apparatus criticus. Any one who 
has studied the text of Ovid with the help 
of the meagre MSS. evidence given in such 
respectable editions as those of Riese, Korn, 
Zingerle or Ehwald, must sincerely hope 
that our editor will do similar service for 
other parts of his author. 

The book opens with a very complete 
introduction in eight sections, written in 
Latin, which, though sometimes too verbose, 
is always intelligible. The chapter headed 
de codicum rationibus is an interesting and 


solid contribution to textual criticism. By 
a minute and ingenious process the MSS. are 
compared and divided into families. Mr. 
Owen shows that six of his MSS. (in-” 
cluding the Marcianus, to which of course 
he gives the supremacy) are to be traced to 
one archetype. He also establishes beyond 
reasonable doubt his coutention that the 
codices deteriores form quite a distinct family. 
Hence he gets a satisfactory basis on which 
to work. Another valuable section of the 
introduction is that entitled guibus temporibus 
Trisiia recensa sint, in which it is argued 
chiefly from the evidence of the MSs. that 
the Zristia must have undergone several 
recensions, one before the fourth century and 
two or three others in the middle ages. 
There is one thing in this introduction 
against which I should like to protest, and 
that is the Latinization of the names of 
modern Englishmen, which often produces a 
grotesque result: eg. Coxius, Robius, 
Nettleshipius, Shuckburghius, [Thackerayus, 
Wilkinsius. Surely these might have been 
left as indeclinables. 

Mr. Owen has adopted the wise plan of 
consigning to an appendix the bulk of the 
conjectures made on the Zristia by older 
scholars, mentioning in his critical notes 
hardly any besides those which he -admits 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


into the text. This long list of emenda- 
tions (among which we tind Madvig’s sz 
iam deficiam suppressaque uena paletur, 
111. 3, 21) is a sad monument of wasted 
ingenuity. To this list Mr. Owen has added 
but little, for he is a model of caution in 
editing. His improvements in the text are 
mostly due, not to brilliant divination, but to 
the wise restitution of the readings of good 
MSS. As an instance of such restitution 
we may quote II. 77—80 as it stands in his 


text :— 


a! ferus et nobis crudelior omnibus hostis, 
delicias legit qui tibi cumque meas, 

carmina ne nostris quae te uenerantia libris 
indicio possint candidiore legi. 


Other good examples are II. 378 corpora 
pressa toro, 11. 277 at quasdam witio, 111. 4, 
73 quamuis longe, IV. 1, 29 wis me tenet ipsa 
sacrorum, 1V. 4, 62 friyoris axe, IV. 9, 3 
dementia, V. 1, 23—24 animos—met, V.1, 66 
sic mihi, V. 6, 5 si non tempore nostro. These 
readings are ably defended in the chapter 
entitled Vindiciae ; and in some cases new 
and ingenious interpretations are offered. 

The few emendations of his own which 
the editor introduces into the text, though 
they are not all convincing, are at least 
improvements on the vulgate. The most 
noteworthy are 11. 85 cum quae, 11. 479 ut 
comitare sequens, ILI. 3, 21 deficiat sub crasso 
lingua palato, IV. 1, 104 iste, V. 10, 12 
iempora uersa, V. 13, 6 scilicet inmoddico. 
In IV. 10, 96 Mr. Owen prints a clever 
conjecture communicated to him by Prof. 
Strachan, equis for eques. The dithcult 
passage 11. 191—198 is greatly improved by 
a rearrangement of lines and emendation of 
the proper names. 

On a few passages I venture to offer some 
small criticisms :— 

I. 3, 52 uel quo festinas 176. uel unde, wide. 
The MSS. are certainly in favour of festinas. 
But it is hard to believe that an Augustan 
poet could have used the indicative in such 
acase. Almost all Mr. Owen’s parallels are 
instances of sunt gui with the indicative, a 
well-known Ovidian use and surely far less 
curious than quo festinas uide. We cannot 
argue from such passages that Ovid is 
generally loose in his use of moods. Mr. 
Owen refers also to Metam. X. 637. Does 
he really believe that Ovid wrote there guid 
Sacit ignorans ? 

11. 232 pars nulla est, quae labat, imperit. 
The Marcianus has lJabat; but almost all 
other MSS. have dabet, and the variants point 


119 


to the same reading. It seems to me that 
this is just one of those passages where the 
authority of the Marcianus is outweighed 
by the consensus of the other MSS. Besides, 
quae labat after a preceding negative is 
strange syntax indeed, which cannot, I think, 
be supported by Mr. Owen’s instances 
referred to above. 

IV. 10, 7 non modo fortunae munere factus 
eques. Though I quite agree that Mr. Owen 
gets the right meaning in this and the pre- 
ceding line, 1 cannot think with him that 
Jortuna here = res familiaris. Fortunae 
munere must mean ‘by the bounty of 
Fortune.’ 

V.1, 71 ipse nec emendo, sed, ut hic de- 

ducta legantur, 
non sunt illa suo barbariora 
loco. 
Mr. Owen’s interpretation is, I venture to 
think, rather clumsy. Perhaps we should 
explain ut—legantur as meaning ‘though 
what is read (at Rome) has been composed 
here (in Scythia),’ putting the stress of the 
clause on the participle. But the passage 15 
a very doubtful one. 
V. 10, 41 utque fit, in se aliquid siatui, αὐ. 
centibus wlis 
abnuerim quotiens annuerim- 
que, putant. 
in se...staiui is a good emendation. For the 
subjunctives in the second line Mr. Owen 
quotes Cic. Cluent. § 86 quodcwmque diceret, 
honestius diceret. Surely they are due to 
Oratio Obliqua: ‘they think that, as often 
as I have nodded...’ 

With regard to the vexed question of 
Latin orthography Mr. Owen has no pre- 
conceived system, but, as a rule, follows the 
MSS., except where their spelling is clearly 
incorrect. Purists in spelling will be sur- 
prised to find that he prints welgus and 
uultus with the MSS., in fact ww, not wo, 
always ; and that he makes out a good case 
for anchora (p. xeviii). For brachia (so the 
MSS., not bracchia) he refers to Riese, vol. I, 
Ρ. xiii. But Riese’s argument seems to me 
absurd. Mr. Owen writes Laodamia. 1 
thought that the evidence was rather in 
favour of Laudamia. 

The excellent collotype facsimiles of pages 
of the Marcian and Tours MSS. add greatly 
to the value of the work. They will be of 
much service to students of textual criticism. 
It is perhaps hardly necessary to add that 
the whole book is got up in that admirable 
style which we have learnt to expect from 
the Clarendon Press. 

G. M. Epwarps. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


HARDY’S EDITION OF PLINY’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH TRAJAN. 


CO. Plinii Caecilii Secundi epistulae ad Traia- 
num imperatorem cum eiusdem responsis. 
Edited, with notes and introductory es- 
says by E. G. Harpy, M.A. London. Mac- 
millan. 1889. 8vo. pp. xii, 251. 10s. 6d. 


Mr. Harpy is to be congratulated on the 
choice of his subject, both in this volume 
and in the edition which he promises of Plu- 
tarch’s lives of Otho and Galba. 

He has been fortunate enough (see his 
article in the Journal of Philology, vol. xvii) 
to discover in the Bodleian a volume con- 
taining the editions of Beroaldus (1498) and 
Avantius (1503, part of the correspondence 
with Trajan) together with a transcript of 
the letters wanting in both collections. It 
seems certain that this Bodleian volume was 
used by Aldus as copy for the first Aldine 
edition (1508). Even Keil’s larger edition 
thus receives a welcome supplement from 
Mr. Hardy’s collations. 

The mass of new material brought to light 
chiefly from inscriptions, and digested by 
Mommsen and Marquardt (Mr. Hardy I 
think always, certainly seventeen times, 
writes Marquadt ; if any consonant in this 
clumsy name is superfluous, surely it is the 
d or t), suggested to Mr. Hardy the illustra- 
tion of the lUitterae inlitteratissimae (he 
writes (p. vi) a single ¢ in each word ; p. 29, 
where he gives the reference, has the right 
spelling) of the official correspondence between 
Trajan and Pliny. It is a great convenience 
to have collected at the foot of the page 
what must else be sought in several costly 
volumes. Even possessors of the best old 
editions will be grateful for the saving of 
time and labour which this work offers to 
them. 

Mr. Hardy complains that Pliny’s letters 
to Trajan ‘have hitherto received compara- 
tively scanty notice from editors and scho- 
lars.’ It would have been well for the 
solidity of his undertaking, if he had used 
the labours of such pioneers as exist. He 
betrays no acquaintance with the elaborate 
edition of Gottlieb Cortius and P. D. Longo- 
lius (Amst. 1734, 4to), with its index of 
words and the valuable elucidations (for the 
so-called Tenth Book) of Rittershusius, Buch- 
ner, Longolius : in this work, and in that of 
G. E. Gierig (Leipz. 1802 8vo.) almost all 
difficulties, of matter or of language, are 
fully discussed by masters of Silver Age 


Latinity. If to these two editions, and the 
slighter work of J. M. Gesner, as edited by 
G. H. Schiifer, he had added the colossal 
commentary of Schwarz on the panegyric 
and Lagergren’s dissertation on the life and 
language of Pliny, he might safely have 
neglected the German notes of Moritz (not 
Moritz, as we read p. 74) Doring (Freyberg 
1843), which have received undue attention 
from him and from other English editors. 
Any one who will verify Déring’s citations 
through a few letters, will learn to distrust 
his guidance. 

For the famous letters on the Christians, 
Mr. Hardy’s choice of authorities is especi- 
ally unfortunate. ‘For my notes and es- 
say on the Christians, I have consulted the 
dissertations of Bandouin (read Baudowin) 
and Vossius ; Aubé, Histoire des Persécutions ; 
and Schiller’s Geschichte der Kaiserzett.’ 
Schiller and Aubé are notoriously weak on 
the side of ecclesiastical history; a few 
hours’ study of the sober critics Kortholdt in 
the 17th century, Boehmer, Moshein, Lard- 
ner in the 18th, would have enabled our 
editor to form a clearer and more consistent 
view of the bearing of Trajan’s rescript than 
he conveys to the reader who compares his 
scattered utterances on the subject. 


On p. 12 we read: ‘This reply made Christianity 
a definite political offence, and laid down the prece- 
dent which in fact characterised the subsequent per- 
secutions.’ 

P. 62: ‘Trajan commends Pliny’s past procedure, 
and distinctly lays it down that all who are charged 
by responsible accusers and prove to be Christians, on 
refusing to deny the name, and, asa test of bona fides, 
to worship the state gods, are to be executed. This, 
then, is the first distinct and legal ordinance made 
respecting the Christians. It amounts, there is no 
doubt, to an edict of proscription. The profession of 
Christianity, as such, if proved on satisfactory 
grounds, was a punishable offence....That the edict 
opened out the possibility of a legal persecution there 
is no doubt, for it was quite within the competence 
of the governor to invite accusations though he could 
not initiate them.’ 

p. 63: ‘With regard to the application of the 
edict, I think it is quite clear that it related not 
to the empire as a whole, but to Bithynia only. 
Trajan’s own words, ‘neque in universum aliquid... 
constitui potest,’ partly imply this, but apart from 
this, without definite evidence, it would be quite in- 
admissible to suppose that a rescript given to a par- 
ticular governor in answer to particular questions 
could be applied beyond the province about which it 
was written.’ [Yet the corpus cwris and Haenel’s 
collection have no meaning except by virtue of this 
supposition. ] 

ibid. ‘Trajan’s rescript is really little more than a 
supplement to his previous edict concerning the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 121 


hetacriae in Bithynia, and really did not touch 
Christianity as a religion at all.’ cf. p. 248. 


It is melancholy, in the nineteenth cen- 
tury, to find on epp. 96 97 the loose cita- 
tions of Catanaeus or Baudouin reproduced 
without attempt at verification. Thus ‘ Ul- 
pian’ (p. 211), ‘Hieronymus in Chron. 
Euseb.’, ‘Tertullian’ (p. 212), ‘ Prudent. 
passione Vincenti,’ ‘Tertullian’ (p. 213), 
‘Tertullian,’ ‘ Euseb. Zecl. Hist. V,’ ‘ losephus 
Ant. Iud. 14,’ ‘Philo,’ ‘Dio Cass.’ (p. 214), 
‘Ulpian lib. viii, de officio Procons. cap. 1, 
‘again,’ ‘in the persecution in Gaul under 
Marcus Aurelius it is said,’ ‘Tertullian to 
Scapula,’ ‘Doring appositely quotes Pru- 
dentius’ (p. 215, Doring of course had not 
seen Prudentius, whose words are given by 
Longolius with the precise reference). 
‘Tertullian,’ ‘ Eusebius,’ ‘Cic. pro Roscio’ 
(p. 216). ‘Tertullian ad Scapulam, Tertull. 
an Scep. (sic, p. 217). 

The misprints, especially in proper names, 
in German and in Greek, are very frequent. 
I count the barbarism connection ten times ; 
but, until correctors and critics unite in 
proscribing the οὐ in substantive derivatives 
of necto and flecto (which to a scholarly eye 
are aS nauseous as resurrexion), we cannot 
visit a universal error on any single head. 
But no such excuse can be made for the 
ingenuity which rolls into one the two editors 
John Scheffer (1621-1679), librarian to 
Queen Christina of Sweden, and George 
Henry Schiifer, best known here as editor of 
Porson’s four plays and of Reiske’s Demos- 
thenes. Preserving the ff of the earlier, 
and the ae of the later name, Mr. Hardy, to 
avoid favoritism, gives us for both (once, p. 
74, within the space of four lines) Schaeffer. 
Wilmanns, the epigraphist, when his name 
is not abridged, appears as Wilmann (pp. 48, 
75, 79a, 85b, 95b, 109b, 1118, 115ab, 138a, 
2510, 2998) or Wilman (2020 bis, 2090, 
2220). The abbreviation rim. (for rémische) 
always figures as rom. I give a specimen of 
other errors as they occur. 


p. 8n. 1 Beitrage pl, Trajan gen. p. 15 1. 4 from 
foot ‘ Henri Francke.’ Why not Henry (or Heinrich, 
as it stands in the book)? p. 311. 9. from foot quia 
(1. quin). p. 56 1. 8 from foot κἀν (=xal ἐν), in 
defiance of Porson’s warning. p. 78a]. 10 from foot 

Antonius’ (1. Antoninus). p. 79a ‘succurit’ and 
(for arrogantia) ‘arroganti.’ yp. 87a ‘for a son to re- 
fuse the hereditas was most dishonourable ; see Cic. 
Phil. 11 16, quamquam hoc maxime admiratus sum 
mentionem te hereditatum ausum esse facere, cum 
ipse hereditatem patris non adisses.’ 
with a shilling’ cannot be said to refuse his patri- 
mony. p. 88 on letter 5 1 miss a reference to letters 
6 and 7 and 10, which relate to the same matter. 
pp- 89 (text) and 90a (note) the barbarous form 
conditionis, though Keil has condicionis. p. 90a 


A son ‘cut off 


Theomuthis, but p. 89 rightly ‘Thermuthin.’ p. 92 
a (summary of ep. 7) ‘home’ for ‘nome.’ p. 920 
three false accents. p. 94b ‘ Quintitius’ for ‘ Quinti- 
lius.’ p. 97a bis ‘vindematio.’ p. 100 title to ep. 
11 ‘media’ for ‘medici.’ p. 1180 ‘Gierig cites.’ 
Not Gierig, but Déring in reply to Gierig. p. 116 
on letter 23 should be cited 70, on the same subject. 
p. 118a an impossible accent αἴρειται. p. 1190 three 
monsters Tato’. ταμιάς. tpds (for mpds). p. 1910 
‘numerals enclosed by two vertical and one horizon- 
tal line are multiplied by 100,000, and those by a 
single horizontal line, by 1000.’ A fine example of 
zeugmna. p. 160b ἕν. yp. 165a ‘atrociosa.’ p. 202b 
κεχιλιαρχήκως. ἔλπιδα. p. 2120 ‘exprobatis.’ ‘ex- 
probavit.’ p. 214b Tertullian [add ‘de ieiun. 17’)... 
implies that abuses crept in, ‘ Apud te agape in sae- 
culis [1]. caceabis] fervet: fides in culinis calet: spes 
in ferculis iacet.’ The context ought to have guarded 
our editor from this slip. p. 216b ἔμπεσον. p. 221b 
‘ perigrini.’ ‘ milariae.’ p. 221b ‘ vitem poscet libello,’ 
for ‘ posce.’ p. 230 (text) ‘debeant’ ; (note) ‘I have 
adopted with the substitution of debcrent for possent.’ 
p- 231b ‘Suet. Claud. 32 convivia agitant []. agitavit] 
et ampla et assidua ac fere patentissimis locis, ut 
plerumque sexcenteni simul discernerent ’ []. disewm- 
berent]. 


A great boon would be conferred on 
readers of Pliny, if the wish of Fabricius 
were carried into effect, and the commentary 
on the epistles, left ready for press by one of 
the most learned of English Latinists, John 
Price, were given to the world. A lexicon 
to Pliny, to match Bonnell’s to Quintilian 
and Gerber and Greef’s to Tacitus, is also 
greatly needed. It would, for one thing, 
make it impossible for any sane man to 
question the genuineness of the letters re- 
lating to the Christians. The following 
parallels will suffice to shew how absolutely 
identical they are in style with the remainder 
of the book. 

ep. 90 δ 1 cunctationem meam regere. ep. 
118 = 119 ὃ 3 rogo igiiur ut dubitationem 
meam regere, id est beneficia tua interpretart, 
ipse digneris. δὶ -- δῦ ὃ ὃ te, domine, rogo ut 
me in hoc praecipue genere cognitions regere 
digneris. 56 =64$ 1 summas, domine, gratias 
ago quod inter maximas occupationes in ts 
de quibus te consului me quoque regere dig- 
natus es. 19=380§1 rogo, domine, consilio 
me regas haesitantem. 

quid et quatenus. 92 = 93 ut tu, domine, 
dispiceres quid et quatenus aut permittendwm 
aut prohibendum putares. cfs ΠΟ ΓΞΞ e 
§ 1 quod an celebrandum et quatenus putes, 
rogo scribas. 

§ 2 nec mediocriter haesitavi. 118=119 
§ 3 hic quoque non mediocriter haereo ne 
cuiusquam retro habeatur ratio. 

nomen ipsum, si flagitiis careat, an flagitia 
cohaerentia nomwini puniantur. Lustin dial. 
39. Tert. scorp. esp. 9. Iren. I 24 8 6 (of 
Basilidians) quapropter et parati sunt ad 
neyationem qui sunt tales, immo magis ne 


122 


pati quidem propter nomen possunt, cum 
sint omnibus similes. 

§ 3 perseverantes duci iussi. The late 
Prof. H. J. Smith once asked me whether 
capital punishment is of necessity implied 
here. Doubtless, esp. after swpplicium. οἵ. 
Sen. ep. 4 ὃ 9. de ira III 22 §2. Tert. ad 
Scap. 5 Arrius Antoninus, when all the 
Christians of a city presented themselves 
before his tribunal, pawcis duci iussis reliquis 
ait, & δειλοί, εἰ θέλετε ἀποθνήσκειν, κρημνοὺς ἢ 
βρόχους ἔχετε. 

pertinaciam Trajan ep. 57=65 ὃ 2 neque 
enim sufficit ewm poenae suae restitur, quam 
contumacia elusit. Gataker on Antonin. 
ΧΙ ὃ 3 p. 386—7. 

§ 4 quos quia cives Romani erant. adnotavi 
in urbem remittendos. Trajan ep. 57 = 65 
δ. 2 qui a Iulio Basso in perpetuum relegatus 
est, . . . vinctus mitti ad praefectos praetorir 
mei debet. 74 = 16 ὃ 2 quem ego perductum 
ad me mittendum ad te putavi. T8=82 ὃ 3 
si in urbem versus venturi erunt. 

plures species inciderunt 56 =64 ὃ 4 nam 
haec quoque species incidit in cognitionem 
meam. 

§ 5 imagini tuae 8=24 § 4. 9 
WG ESE ek: “apocal,” 19. 10: 
(Mommsen rom. Gesch. V 522). 

ture ac vino supplicarent, praeterea male 
dicerent Christo, Iustin dial. 131. Tert. 
ady. Val. 30. Orig. in Matt. comm. ser. 38 
(IV 267 Τὴ Basilidis quoque sermones detrah- 
entes quidem tis, qui usque ad mortem certant 
pro veritate, ut confiteantur coram hominibus 
Iesum, indifferenter autem agere docentes ad 
denegandum et ad sacrificandum dis alienis. 
Epiphan. haer. 24 4. Haversaat’s criticism 
that male dicerent belongs to ecclesiastical 
Latin, would only hold if it were followed 
by an accusative. 

§ 7 secundum mandata tua hetaerias esse 
vetueram 56=64 ὃ 3 mandatis tuls cautwm 
est, ne restituam ab alio aut a me relegatos. 
110-- 111 ὃ 1 wtebaturque mandatis tuis, 
quibus eius modi donationes vetantur. 22 = 33 
‘ mandatis mets. 90 -- 39 8 1 secundum man- 
data mea. 

§ 8 per tormenta quaerere. Torture of 
slaves Eus. h. e. V 1 14 (ep. Vienn. et Lugd.). 
Tren, fr. 13 (I 832 St.). Tustin apol. II 12. 
Tert. ad nat. I 7. 

dilata cognitione ad consulendum te decu- 
eurri 72=77 rem integram distuli dum tu, 
domine, praeceperis, quid observare me velis. 
POS. TO SG 110s 2: 

consulendum 56=64 ὃ 2 necessarium cre- 
didi rem totam ad te referre. ὃ 5 per quod 
effectum est, ut te consulerem. 29=38 § 1 
quorum ego supplicium distuli ut te condit- 


=25. 74 
6 9. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


orem disciplinae militaris firmatoremque con- 
sulerem de modo poenae. 31=40§ 4 neces- 
sario ergo rem totam, dum te consulerem, 77 
suspenso reliqui. 58=66 ὃ 4 nihil decernen- 
dum putavi, donec te consulerem de eo, quod 
mihi constitutione tua dignum videbatur. 
65=71 ὃ 2 ego auditis constitutionibus prin- 
cipum, quia nihil inveniebam aut proprium 
aut universale quod ad Bithynos referretur, 
consulendum te existimavt, quid observari 
velles. cf. 7T9=83 § 5. 68=73 te, domine, 
maximum poniificem consulendum putavt. 
81=85 ὃ 5 ego cum dandam dilationem et 
consulendum te existimarem in re ad exem- 
plum pertinenti. cf.82=86§1. 110=111 
§ 2 quibus ex causis integram cognitionem 
differendam existimavi, ut te, domine, con- 
sulerem quid sequendum putares. 

§ 10 victimarum, quarum adhuc raris- 
simus emptor inveniebatur. Renan St. Paul 
p. 308 n. 3. Philostr. Apoll. I 2. IV 41. 
Schmidt Denkfreiheit 168. 181. Minuc. 
12 $5. 

ex quo facile est opinari quae turba homi- 
num emendari possit, sisit paenitentiae locus. 
That this last phrase may not be suspected 
as biblical (Hebr. 12 17) cf. Liv. XXIV 26 § 
15 ira deinde ex misericordia orta, quod adeo 
Sestinatum ad supplicium neque locus paeni- 
tendi aut regressus ab ira relictus esset. XLIV 
10 ὃ 2 Andronicus . . traxerat tempus, id 
ipsum, quod accidit, paenitentiae relinquens 
locum. Fronto p. 207 Naber leviora sciens _ 
dissimulavit : locum paenitendi reliquit. dig. 
XL 7 3 13 paenitentiae heredi locum non 
esse. And Pliny himself I 24 ὃ 4 μέ paeni- 
tentiae locum non relinguat. 

ep. 97 (98) § 1 actum 27=88 pristinum 
actum. 

in excutiendis causis 86=82 § 2 ratio 
totius operis excutiatur. 

neque enim in universum aliquid quod 
quasi certam formam habeat constitui potest. 
113=114 honorarium decurionatus omnes qui 
in quaque civitate Bithyniae decuriones fiunt 
inferre debeant necne, in universum ὦ me 
non potest statut. id ergo quod semper tutis- 
simum est, sequendam cuiusque civitatis legem 
puto. 65=71 § 2 nihil inveniebam aut pro- 
prium aut universale quod ad Bithynos refer- 
retur. 6672 ὃ 1 nec quicquam invenitur m 
commentariis eorum principum qui ante me 
fuerunt, quod ad omnes provincias sit con- 
stitutum. 

§ 2 suspectus in praeteritum. cf. 111=112. 
115 = 116 mihi hoc temperamentum eius 
placuit, ut ex praeterito nihil novaremus. 
VIII 14 § 1 non ut in praeteritum (serwm 
enim), verum ut in futurum, st quid simile 
acciderit, erudiar. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 123 


sine auctore propositi libelli 96 § 5 pr. 
31 = 40 ὃ 5 credibile erat neminem hoc ausum 
sine auctore. 32 = 41 $1 qui damnati ad 
poenam erant, non modo ea sine auctore, ut 
scribis, liberati sunt. 

nec nostri saeculi est 23 = 34 § 2 quod 
alioqui et dignitas civitatis et saeculi tui nitor 
postulat. 37 = 46 § 3 ego tllud unum affirmo 
et utilitatem operis et pulchritudinem saeculo 
tuo esse dignissimam. δῦ - 63 invitos ad 
accipiendum compellere . . . non est ex iustitia 
nostrorum temporum. δῶ = 86$1 cum pro- 
positum meum optime nosses non ex metu nec 
terrore hominum aut criminibus maiestatis 
reverentiam nomini meo adquirere. 1 § 2 
prospera omnia, id est digna saeculo tuo. 
12 =7 felicitas temporum. 3 A = 20 § 2 
tranquillitatt saeculi tui. cf. Τὰν. 4 68n. 
M. Aurelius (Vuleat. Gall. Cass. 2) non 
nostri temporis. Keim Rom p. 326. dig. 
XLVIII 22 1. Dio LX VIII 6 8 4 (of Trajan) 
διαβολαῖς ἥκιστα ἐπίστευε. 

Mr. Hardy follows Schiller in rejecting 
the evidence of ‘Tacitus and Suetonius 
respecting the persecution of Christians by 
Nero. Their positive testimony is supposed 
to be outweighed by the silence of Seneca 
and the elder Pliny. It is assumed that, if 
either of these latter authors had heard of 
Christians, they must have mentioned them 
in their extant works. It would be charit- 
able to assume that Dr. Schiller had read 
neither Seneca nor Pliny. But he pushes to 
an absurdity the argument from silence to 
ignorance when he informs us (Nero p. 584 
n. 3) ‘Juvenal also knows nothing of the 
Christians.’ Marvellous as is the art with 
which the poet of Aquinum packs into a 
few pages a panorama of his age, guidquid 
agunt homines, he necessarily leaves out more 
than he can insert. The silence of Josephus 
is no doubt significant, but the criticism 
which infers from it ignorance of Christianity 
certainly sins on the side of credulity rather 
than of scepticism. Mr. Hardy goes farther 
than Schiller. Not only does he reiterate 
(pp. 51, 54, 55, 239-243) the assumption 
that ‘Tacitus and Suetonius in relating the 
events of Nero’s reign are speaking of the 
Christians from the point of view of their 
own time,’ which means, I suppose, that, 
finding in their authorities ‘Jews,’ they 
arbitrarily substituted ‘Christians’; but he 
surmises (p. 211) that Pliny, when he says 
(ep. 96 § 1) cognitionibus de Christianis inter- 
Sui numquam, is guilty of the same confusion 
as his two friends. 


In Bithynia the Christians were especially numer- 
ous, and Pliny on the spot would soon distinguish 
them from the Jews, and applying this acquired 


knowledge back to past events in which he then took 
no interest, he describes as ‘ cognitiones christian- 
orum’ (sic), what had been in the eyes cf the govern- 
ment only trials of Judaisers. 


Mr. Hardy seems inclined to believe that 
Tacitus and Suetonius may have heard of 
the Christians first from their common (or, 
as he prefers to say, mutual) friend, Pliny. 


P. 240. Dr. Lightfoot lays even more stress on 
the language of Tacitus and Suetonius, who both of 
them distinctly mention the Christians as victims of 
Nero’s cruelty. The view that they may be ‘ inject- 
ing into the incidents of the reign of Nero the 
language and experience that belong to the age of 
Trajan,’ he regards as a wholly gratuitous assump- 
tion. That it is an assumption which cannot be 
proved is not denied, but at least it has the advan- 
tage of explaining the facts, which Dr. Lightfoot’s 
assumption about the all-predominant influence of 
Poppaea and her use of it against the Christians does 
not do. Nor can it be said to be gratuitous. These 
notices, written certainly not before the second decade 
of the second century, are the very first indications 
in non-Christian writers that the Christians were re- 
garded as an independent body, or were in fact known 
by name to the Roman world at all. Josephus, 
Seneca, and the elder Pliny are absolutely silent 
about them. This silence does not prove that those 
writers knew nothing about the Christians, but it 
certainly gives some grounds for the assumption, 
while both Tacitus and Suetonius, whose notices about 
the Christians are later in date than Pliny’s letter, 
might have gained their information, if in no other 
way, from their mutual friend. 


An ingenious attempt, by aid of the ‘ great 
might-have-been,’ to reduce three indepen- 
dent witnesses to one. If Mr. Hardy will 
look at the third chapter of the life of 
Josephus, he will see that Dr. Lightfoot’s 
statement respecting Poppaea is no gratuitous 
assumption, like the rejection of the witness 
of the two historians, or the argument from 
silence, but rests on indisputable evidence. 

The Jews, wishing to procure the release 
of certain priests, send Josephus to Rome, 
with instructions, as it appears, to approach 
Poppaea by means of a favorite Jewish actor. 
Josephus carries out his instructions with 
perfect success. [Ὁ is incredible that then 
for the first or last time Poppaea used her 
influence on behalf of the Jews. 

p- 28 (cf. p. 21) we read of Pliny: ‘A 
dabbler in philosophy, he had no convictions 
which could have drawn upon him the fate 
of Thrasea, or Helvidius, or Rusticus.’ We 
know that the informer Carus denounced 
Pliny, and that Domitian’s death alone saved 
him from sharing the fate of his friends 
(ep. VII 24 § 14). 

It is to be hoped that the following is not 
an average specimen of Mr. Hardy’s use of 
authorities (p. 215) :— 

Ulpian lays it down, lib. viii, De officio Procons. 
cap. 1, ‘servum alicuius corporis vel universitatis 


124 


torquere licebit in eorum etiam caput qui eius cor- 
poris erant.’ Again, ‘Divus Hadrianus rescripsit a 
suspectissimo incipiendum et a quo facillime potest 
verum scire iudex crediderit.’ 

Few readers will take the pains to ascer- 
tain that the latter quotation is from dig. 
XLVII! 181 ὃ 2, where book eight of the 
specified treatise of Ulpian is cited, but not 
chapter one. The former quotation, though 
given in inverted commas, contains, not the 
precise text of Ulpian, but Baudouin’s sum- 
mary of his teaching (Mr. Hardy himself 
corrupts licebat to licebit). To Baudouin also 
is due ‘cap. 1,’ for which no authority exists. 
At least none is known to Otto Lenel 
(Palingenesia iuris civilis, Lips. 1889, 11 
966-991) who has collected with great exact- 
ness the extant fragments of Ulpian’s book. 

A somewhat similar freedom is taken with 
Ulpian’s words on ep. 96 ὃ 1 p. 2118: 

The general duty which, as Ulpian says, was in- 
cumbent on all provincial governors, ‘statim atque 
in aliqueim (516) celebrem civitatem vel provinciae 
caput proconsul venit, debere sedes sacras circumire 
atque inspicere.’ 


This is from book II of the de officio pro- 
consulis (11 968 Lenel, dig. I 16 7 pr.) si in 
aliam quam (v. 1. aliquam) celebrem civitatem 
vel provinciae caput advenerit,... debet ... 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


§ 1 aedes sacras et opera publica circumire 
inspiciendi gratia. 

10 would be easy to add illustrations which 
have escaped the commentators. Thus ep. 
10 8 1 epistulae is used like litterae and 
ἐπιστολαί, of a single letter. See my note on 
1119 ὃ 13 and ind. ep. 23 ὃ 2 saeculi tui 
nitor. Tac. d. 22 daetitiam nitoremque 
nostrorum temporum. 

In conclusion I would recommend the 
letters regarding the Christians as a worthy 
theme for a monograph. Any one who will 
digest the whole literature will, I believe, 
prove beyond possibility of cavil, that it 
would have required a more skilful forger 
to compose the correspondence of Pliny and 
Trajan than to compose the nine books of 
miscellaneous correspondence ; and that, as 
Aldus said long ago, letters 96 and 97, far 
from being an interpolation, establish the 
genuineness of the entire collection. 

[| P.S.—The best criticism of these letters, 
known to me, is the latest—in Neumann’s 
Der rimische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche 
bis auf Diocletian (Leipz. Veit), of which 
the first volume has just appeared. | 


Joun E. B. Mayor. 


BURY’S HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE. 


A History of the Later Roman Empire, from 
Arcadius to Irene (395 a.p, to 800 a.D.), 
by J. B. Bury M.A., Fellow and Tutor 
of Trinity College, Dublin. (Macmillan & 
Co. : 2 vols. 8vo.) 


Mr. Bury’s volumes are an important and 
valuable contribution to our knowledge of a 
period, the history of which has been too 
much neglected by scholars. It may be 
safely said that, for a student of the History 
of the World, Imperial Rome—whether we 
apply that name to the city by the Tiber or 
to the daughter-city by the Bosphorus—is 
far more important than Republican Rome ; 
yet how many an undergraduate who knows 
every detail of the Second Punic War would 
fail to give a satisfactory account of the 
great event which marked the reign of 
Constantine Pogonatus ! 

Of course this partial treatment of history 
is to some extent explained by the immense 
difference between the literary excellence of 
the earlier and the later historians. It is 
far pleasanter to follow the footsteps of 
Hannibal under the guidance of Livy or 


Polybius than to piece out the history of 
Heraclius from the turgid sentences of 
Theophylact or the curious iambics of George 
of Pisidia. But if history is to be studied 
seriously as a science 1t will not be possibile 
for the student to confine his reading to 
books distinguished by their literary ex- 
cellence ; and the more repulsive the material 
the greater is the credit due to an author 
who, like Mr. Bury, has patiently and labor- 
iously dug it for us out of the mine and 
wrought it into historical form. 

It will be seen from the title that the book 
deals with the four great transitional cen- 
turies between Theodosius and him whom 
we used without fear to speak of as Charle- 
magne, that is to say between the so-called 
‘Downfall of the Western Empire’ and its 
restoration by the King of the Franks. 
How much there was that was wrong and 
misleading in this view of the matter is fully 
explained by the author in his preface. He 
is a loyal follower of Bryce and Freeman, and 
it may be said that one great purpose of his 
book is to show the thorough continuity of 
the Empire, and to explain how completely 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


during these transition-centuries Augustus 
Imperator remained the foremost figure in 
the eyes of the European nations, whether 
he held his court on the Palatine at Rome or 
by the Augusteum at Constantinople. 

It would be interesting but is of course 
here impossible to discuss the author’s views 
of some of the chief actors during these 
eventful histories. His bias is throughout 
rather more pro-Roman and anti-Teutonic 
than that of some recent authors, including 
the writer of this notice. Thus he takes 
the least favourable view of Stilicho’s char- 
acter, considering him little better than an 
accomplice with Alaric in his invasion of 
Italy and believing the story told by the 
ecclesiastical historians of his ambitious 
views on behalf of Eucherius his son. So 
too he speaks of ‘ the tender hot-bed plant of 
Theodoric’s Ostrogothie civilitas which had 
never really looked promising’: a remark 
from which some admirers of Theodoric 
would venture to dissent, holding that 
Theodoric’s system was full of promise for 
Italy and the world, and that, if it had had 
anything like fair-play, the barbarian dark- 
ness of the Middle Ages might have been 
shortened by some centuries. He also has 
little but praise for Justinian, the great re- 
asserter of the supremacy of ‘ Romania’ as 
against ‘ Barbaricum,’ and entirely dissents 
from the view that his conquest of the 
Vandal kingdom in Africa smoothed the 
way for the victories of the Saracens in 
that region. All these paragraphs would 
furnish material for much interesting con- 
troversy if this were the time or the place for 
it. There is certainly much force in Mr. 
Bury’s argument that the fact that Carthage 
formed part of the Empire at the critical 
moment of the dethronement of Phocas was 
of vital importance to the safety of the 
Empire. From this point of view the best 
champion of the fame of Justinian is 
Heraclius. 

For readers of this Review probably the 
most interesting chapters in the book will 
be those which relate to the history of 
literature and the survival of the Hellenic 
nationality. Mr. Bury has devoted great 
pains to this part of his subject and we 
think has treated it very successfully. His 
remarks on Procopius are very just. 

‘In fact Procopius was at core, in the 
essence of his spirit, a pagan: Christianity, 
assented to by his lips and his understanding, 
was alien to his soul, like a half-known 
foreign language. He could not think in 
Christian terms: he was not able to handle 
the new religious conceptions, he probably 


125 


felt wonder, rather than satisfaction, at the 
joys that come from Nazareth. And we 
may safely say that it was just this pagan 
nature, deeper perhaps than that of the 
aggressive Zosimus, that (in the peculiar 
circumstances of the times) made him such 
a good historian. He is almost worthy to 
be placed beside Ammianus.’ 

We are rather surprised to read that 
‘there is no reason to consider the “ Edifices ” 
of Procopius an insincere work, although it 
was perhaps written to order.’ We should 
have thought it, as the work of the same 
pen that wrote the ‘ Histories ’—to say no- 
thing of the ‘ Anecdota’—one of the most 
thoroughly insincere books in literature. 

On the difficult question of the authorship 
of the ‘ Anecdota,’ Mr. Bury is disposed to 
follow Ranke rather than Dahn, and to 
attribute this strange performance to a sort 
of clique of opposition scribes who may per- 
haps have got hold of some ‘ MS. of frag- 
mentary jottings written by the true Pro- 
copius’ and tacked on to these their wild 
and scurrilous stories against the Emperor 
and his court. The suggestion is an ingeni- 
ous one, but it will require a good deal of 
argument to overthrow the strong case for 
the absolute identity of authorship made 
out by Dahn in his ‘ Procopius von Caesarea.’ 
Possibly the ultimate conclusion will be as 
to this most difficult question— 


‘All that we knowis, nothingcan be known—’ 


but we should like to suggest yet one 
more possible theory to the disputants, and 
that is that the ‘Anecdota’ may have 
been the work of Procopius under the influ- 
ence of a disordered intellect. 

Mr. Bury has much to say on the obscure 
but important subject of Slavonic settle- 
ments in Greece. He accepts in the main 
the argument of Hopf and rejects the famous 
theory of Fallmerayer which would have 
dethroned the present inhabitants of Greece 
from their Hellenic pride of birth and made 
them descendants of Slavonic barbarians. 
He points out however some flaws in the 
reasoning of Hopf, whom he considers 
‘almost as much an advocate as Fallmerayer,’ 
and concludes that, at any rate in the eighth 
century, there was a large infusion of the 
Slavonic element, rather perhaps in the 
country districts than in the towns of Greece, 
and that at any rate the earlier Slavonic 
settlers very speedily adopted the Hellenic 
speech and the Christian religion. 

For the remarks of the author as to the 
changes which the Greek language under- 
went we must refer our readers to his very 


126 


interesting chapter (Book 1V., cap. vii.) on 
‘the Language of the Romaioi in the Sixth 
Century.’ He distinguishes ‘ three kinds of 
Greek : (1) the vulgar spoken language from 
which modern Greek is derived, (2) the spoken 
language of the educated, which under the 
influence of the vulgar tongue tended to 
degenerate, and (3) the conventional written 
language which endeavoured to preserve the 
traditions of Hellenistic prose from the 
changes which affected the oral “ common 
dialect.””’ He concludes, partly from the 
strange dialogue between Justinian and the 
Green Faction which has been preserved by 
Theophanes, that the Hellenic language was 
‘already far on its way to becoming what is 
called Romaic and was in fact already known 
by that name.’ 

‘A sixth-century inscription in Nubia 
proves that the word νηρόν was then used for 
“ water,’ whence comes the modern Greek 
νερό. A mule is βορδώνης instead of ἡμίονος 
and σγαυδάριν or yavddpw is apparently used 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


for an ass. A standard is Bavdov, an iron- 
headed club is δίστριν, luggage is τοῦλδον, 
and σκούλκα is used for a guard or watch. 
Besides the strange vocabulary, derived 
partly from Latin and partly from local 
Greek words, changes are taking placein the 
grammar and syntax. Terminations in -ἰον 
for example are becoming corrupted to -w: 
the perfect tense and many prepositions and 
particles are falling into disuse.’ 

We conclude, as we began, by commending 
to the attention of all historical students, but 
especially of those who may have been 
chiefly occupied hitherto with the fortunes 
of Athens and the Elder Rome, this careful 
and patient survey of the history of the 
Roman Empire during a _ period which 
witnessed changes of the most momentous im- 
port to the nations of Europe and Asia, the 
effects of which we are continually feeling in 
the political controversies of our own day. 


Tuos. HopcGKInN. 


RAWLINSON’S HISTORY OF PHOENICIA. 


History of Phoenicia. By Grorcr Raw in- 
son, M.A., Camden Professor of Ancient 
History in the University of Oxford, 
London and New York: Longmans, Green 
and Co: 1989. Pp, xxii” 89. ὃὅνο. 
24s. 


ΤῊΝ Bible is the chief source of Prof. 
Rawlinson’s information about Phoenicia : 
he cites it more than 250 times as his 
authority. Its evidence appears to him 
conclusive, and is accordingly exempted from 
any criticism. Thus he says on p. 449 :— 
‘The army which he [Sennacherib] set in 
motion must have numbered more than 
200,000 men.’ And in a note he gives his 
reason for this estimate :—‘ It was the same 
army which lost 185,000 men by miracle in 
one night (2 Kings, xix. 35) And yet he 
at times fails to take note of important 
biblical statements ; e.g. in speaking of the 
siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, he says on 
Ρ. 473 that the city submitted :—‘ Thus 
Tyre, in B.c. 585, fell from her high estate. 
Ezekiel’s prophecies were fulfilled.’ But 
Ezekiel himself, xxix. 18, admits the notori- 
ous fact that his prophecies were not fulfilled, 
inasmuch as the siege failed. 

The Egyptian and Assyrian sources have 
not been properly utilized. For Egyptian 
sources, there is one reference to Brugsch’s 


History of Egypt, and three references to two 
translations in Lecords of the Past: and that 
is all. Consequently on pp. 406, 407, there 
is only some vague talk about Egyptian 
supremacy and its decline, where there - 
should be precise statements about the 
Egyptian invasion of Phoenicia in the 
twenty-ninth year of Thothmes III., the 
invasion of Egypt from Phoenicia in the 
eighth year of Rameses ILI., and so forth. 
There is no allusion to the alleged Phoeni- 
cian origin of the Hyksos ; nor to the sug- 
gested identification of the Fenchu of the 
inscriptions with the Phoenicians. For 
Assyrian sources, there are only references 
to George Smith’s Hponym Canon, and to 
translations in Records of the Past. Con- 
sequently many historical events are com- 
pletely ignored : e.g. the reduction of Cyprus 
by Sargon, attested by the Larnaka inscrip- 
tion. The Babylonian or Assyrian origin 
of Phoenician writing, maintained by some 
high authorities, is likewise ignored ; though 
space is found on p. 378 for wild conjectures 
about Hittite hieroglyphic and the Cypriote 
syllabary. Curiously E. de Rougé’s theory of 
derivation from Egyptian hieraticisattributed 
by Prof. Rawlinson cn p. 377 to a writer in 
the last edition of the Hncyclopaedia Britan- 
nica,as if it were there enunciated for the first 
time. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 127 


The Greek and Latin sources were pretty 
completely collected by Movers; and then 
Kenrick appropriated most of his results. 
But Prof. Rawlinson has been imprudent in 
trusting entirely to Kenrick. For instance, 
Movers made a perfectly convincing emenda- 
tion of sixteen for sixty in Josephus, Anti- 
quitates, ix. 14. 2, but Kenrick missed this ; 
and accordingly Prof. Rawlinson has made 
mistaken observations on pp. 446, 447, in 
the belief that the number really was sixty. 
Such of the Greek and Latin sources as have 
been utilized, have not been properly sifted : 
the trustworthy and untrustworthy being 
cited with provoking impartiality. And 
many of them have not been utilized at all. 
There is no allusion, for example, to the 
so-called Treaty of Kallias: though the pros- 
perity and foreign commerce of Phoenicia 
must have been profoundly affected by an 
agreement which secured the Aegean to the 
Greeks and the eastern waters round Cyprus 
to the Persians and their dependents the 
Phoenicians. 

The material sources of information about 
Phoenicia have lately been discussed by 
MM. Perrot and Chipiez in the third volume 
of their work: and their results might have 
been subjected to judicious condensation. 
As it is, some things are noticed at length, 
while others of equal importance are dis- 
missed in a few words or simply ignored. 
Thus, exactly one tenth of the whole space 
devoted to architecture and art and manu- 
factures is occupied by a detailed description 
of a series of bowls: and this is mere de- 
scription in the style of an auction catalogue, 
quite valueless apart from criticism. The 
illustrations, with hardly an exception, are 
taken from this volume of MM. Perrot and 
Chipiez. The obligation is generally ac- 
knowledged : but on p. ix. of the preface and 
in the list of illustrations it is stated that 
many of them are taken from various other 
books there mentioned. This is misleading : 
they were taken from those books by MM. 
Perrot and Chipiez. There are similarly 
misleading statements on pp. vii. and ix. to 
the effect that Prof. Rawlinson has drawn 
materials from Movers. He has them at 
second hand through Kenrick. 

For Phoenician inscriptions Prof. Rawlin- 
son has relied, in every case but one, upon 
the translations in Gesenius and in the early 
parts of the Corpus Inscriptionum Semitic- 
arum. But hes quotes the inscription of 
Tabnith on p. 395 from his own book, 716 
Story of Phoenicia. Had he referred to his 
real authority, M. Renan’s translation in the 


Revue Archéologique for July 1887, he would 
have seen that he has left out a line. 
On pp. 396, 397, he gives a rendering of 
C.ILS. No. 1: and says in a note that he 
has followed M. Renan’s translation. Here 
is a portion of this translation :—‘ Omnis 
regia stirps et omnis homo qui addiderit 
facere opus super al(tare hoc et super] 
coelaturam auream hance et super porticum 
hance, [pono] ego Iehaumelecus, [rex Gebal, 
faciem meam adversus eum qui] fecerit opus 
hoe, et sive...sive...istum., Et quicunque... 
super locum hune, [et quicunque..., aboleat] 
domina Baalat-Gebal hominem ipsum et 
semen ejus.’ And here is the rendering of 
this :—‘ Every royal personage and every 
other man who shall make additions to this 
altar, or to this golden carving, or to this 
portico, I, Jehavmelek, king of Gebal, set 
my face against him who shall do so, and I 
pray my lady Beltis of Gebal to destroy that 
man, whoever he be, and his seed after him.’ 
The rendering, whoever he be, is really 
admirable. 

The slipshod reasoning on imperfect or 
inaccurate information, which is too charac- 
teristic of this book, cannot be fully exposed 
in a brief review. The opening statements 
of the book must serve here as specimens 
of its style throughout. Prof. Rawlinson 
begins by saying that the palm-tree ‘ formed 
a leading and striking characteristic’ of 
Phoenicia: and hence the Greeks ‘called 
the tract Phoenicia, or the Land of Palms; 
and the people who inhabited it the Phoeni- 
cians, or the Palm-tree people.’ Now, it is 
true that Φοῖνιξ means a Phoenician and also 
means a palm-tree, and that Φοινίκη means 
Phoenicia. But the argument from mere 
identity of name goes just as well the other 
way :—the Greeks called the palm-tree the 
Phoenician because it was characteristic of 
Phoenicia. And then the meaning of the 
name must be considered. The Phoenicians 
may have got the name because they were 
themselves of ruddy countenance, or because 
they traded in the ruddy dye; but palm- 
trees are not strikingly ruddy. He then 
argues that the palm must anciently have 
been among the chief ornaments of the coast 
round Aradus, becanse ‘the palm is the 
numismatic emblem of Aradus.’ It is only 
on one small series of the coins of Aradus, 
from 244 to 183 B.c., that the palm occurs 
as anemblem. But the inference would be 
unwarrantable in any case, for such emblems 
were chosen quite capriciously. 


κοι, Torr. 


128 


SCHMIDT'S 


HANDBUCH DER LATEINISCHEN 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


UND GRIECHISCHEN 


SYNONYMIK. 


Handbuch der Lateinischen und Griechischen 
Synonymtk, von Prof. Dr. J. H. Hetnricu 
Scumipt. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. pp. 
844, 12 Mk. 


In the Preface to the fourth volume of his 
Synonymik der Griechischen Sprache (four vols. 
1876-1886) Prof. Schmidt promised a ‘ hand- 
book’ of synonymes, which now appears in 
the form of this stout octavo. The reason for 
the delay in its appearance is somewhat 
amusing : the author has been plunging deep 
intonatural science with the help of a‘splendid 
microscope, and satisfying himself of the 
worthlessness of materialistic theories. He 
offers us some comments upon the usage of 
some 2400 Greek words, and about 1500 
Latin words, arranged according to their 
meaning in 126 groups. But he does not 
deal with these by definitions or ‘ Schlag- 
worter’; this would be unworthy of an 
honourable man, most definitions being in- 
complete and often untrue. He prefers to 
give, at greater length than some of his 
predecessors, illustrative quotations, not 
however sparing to give his own conceptions 
of their force. In Greek Dr. Schmidt has 
not merely abridged his larger work ; he 
has added to it in some respects, though of 
course omitting much. In Latin he has 
been more dependent upon others, especially 
on Doderlein, from whom however he often 
differs. His own original contributions have 
been mainly drawn from natural science, but 
here he has been concerned rather to stim- 
ulate the reader than to exhaust the subject. 
Certainly Dr. Schmidt’s method gives much 
freshness to his style ; and he is justly proud 
of having now published some 7000 pages 
without a footnote ! 

A work of this magnitude can hardly be 
reviewed satisfactorily, except after it has 
been in frequent use for months or years ; 
but a few points of interest may be noted, 
which have presented themselves on a 
cursory inspection. 

Distinguishing between flavus and fulvus, 
he finds the former to be a yellow, the latter 
a brown. But when we have the ‘brown 
beak’ of the nightingale (Ar. Av. 214 etc.) 
he bids us remember that the Greeks were 
fond of transferring words of colour to 
motion, and he would have us translate 
rather ‘ quivering,’ just as Babrius applies 
ξουθός to the ‘steel-blue’ swallow, and 
Chaeremon even to the wind. Fulvus he 


would allow to include the whole sphere of 
flavus (except pale yellow), and brown as 
well. Zuteus is defined as a yellow passing 
into red, an orange red; and we are told 
that the strict meaning is determined by the 
fact that the yolk of an egg is called Jutwm 
(more correctly /utewm); while croceus is a 
pure yellow not inclining to red. But what 
are we to make in that case of Virgil’s 
eroceo mutabit vellera luto? If Ovid applies 
luteus to sulphur, this is put-down as an 
exaggeration: and Horace’s luteus pallor 
is pronounced ‘an intentional jest.’ Surely 
this is to attempt a precise limitation 
which the usage of the language does not 
permit. Elsewhere ferrugo is simply defined 
as ‘steel-blue,’ without any attempt to dis- 
cuss the various uses of this most perplexing 
word, For χλωρός Dr. Schmidt will allow 
no literal meaning but ‘green’: when used 
of honey and cheese, he insists on the 
rendering ‘fresh,’ and the χλωρὰ ψάμαθος of 
Soph 47. 1064 is for him the ‘ grass-grown’ 
sand. Few will agree with him that a 
poet could not have brought in such an 
‘ugly’ picture as a corpse on ‘ yellow’ 
sand. Here again there is an attempt at 
quite needless precision. The treatment of 
unda (κῦμα) and fluctus (κλύδων) is much 
more satisfactory than Doederlein’s. Dr. 
Schmidt’s criticism of Doederlein’s comments” 
on emort is convincing ; evoev and ὑπνοῦν are 
also well treated. He is less successful in 
his attack upon the accepted distinction 
between potentia and potestas; none of his 
examples debar us from confining the latter 
to lawfully conferred or at least natural 
authority, which of course may be unlimited 
in its character. The difference between 
incipere and incohare is brought out by 
illustrations which are none the less easy to 
remember because they are rather comical. 
On the whole the derivations are in accord- 
ance with modern science, herein contrasting 
very favourably with some current text- 
books ; but it may well be doubted whether 
χορός is originally the dance in which all who 
took part in it clasped (root XEP) each other’s 
hands, and not rather the enclosed spot for 
dancing (cp. Homer’s λείηναν δὲ χορόν). It 
would not be difficult to find other points 
of difference or of doubt ; but the book is 
both a useful and an interesting one, and 
deserves to be welcomed accordingly. 


A. S. WILKINS. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Homer’s Odyssey. Books I.—IV. Edited on 
the basis of the Ameis-Hentze edition, by B. 
PERRIN, Professor in Adelbert College of Western 
Reserve University. Boston, U.S.A. Published 
by Ginn & Company, 1889. [College Series of 
Greek Authors edited under the supervision of 
JoHN WILLIAMS WHITE and THomAs D. Sry- 
MOUR. ] 


KARL FRIEDRICH AMEIS was no ordinary man. He 
laboured all his days in the Gymnasium, and his 
commentary on Homer is the only important work 
by which he is remembered. Of this commentary he 
only lived to complete the Odyssey and the early 
books of the Iliad. But his commentary differs from 
most other German commentaries in the degree to 
which the author’s personal interest and personality 
reveal themselves in his work. Ameis had abundant 
erudition and he availed himself of all sources of 
knowledge within his reach, not least important 
among which was the co-operation of a large number 
of personal friends. He knew and loved his Homer, 
he makes Homer his own interpreter, and his loving 
acquaintance with the great poems yields to the 
readers of his notes ever fresh pleasure and fresh 
knowledge. 

Ameis’s edition, incomplete as regarded the [iad 
at his death, was carried forward by Dr. Hentze of 
the Gottingen Gymnasium, an exact and learned 
scholar, and the Ameis-Hentze edition has been made 
the basis of this volume of the College Series of Greek 
Classics which it is my privilege to review. 

This American book is the fruit of an unusual 
union of effort by different persons, each of the 
highest competence, and Professor Perrin wiil be glad 
that attention should be called to the fact that the 
preparation of a portion of the commentary (on a 
and a part of 8) had been made by Professor Packard 
before his recent lamented death. It would not be 
easy to name a book, carried over from the German 
into English, in which so few traces of its German 
origin appear. This results not only from the 
abundant amount of fresh material which Profes- 
sor Perrin has introduced, but from the skill and 
taste characteristic alike of Professors Perrin and 
Packard. 

The best Homeric scholars will find the most 
pleasure in perusing this commentary. This volume 
has been prepared with reference to use in schools as 
well as in colleges. Few Greek classics are better 
adapted for use in the higher forms of classical schools 
than the Odyssey. It is an unequalled mirror of 
Greek life. Its narrative form attracts and allures 
the young scholar, while its simplicity of style places 
no difficulty in his path. Professor Merry’s admirable 
editions of the Odyssey have richly deserved the 
success they have gained, but the present volume will 
be found to supply material not contained in Merry’s 
commentary. 

Rosert P. ΚΕΒΕΡ, 


129 


Das Praesens der indogermanischen Grund- 
sprache, von Orro HorrMANN. Gottingen, Van- 
denhoeck und Ruprecht : 8. 145. 


Dr. HorrMANN’s treatise 15 ἃ useful reminder that not 
everything written in German is to be implicitly fol- 
lowed by the trustful philologist, even though its 
preface bear the date ‘mai 1889’ and its formulae 
bristle with yand τῳ. If we may trust our present 
evidence, the author’s principles were formed under 
the old school, though stress of circumstances compels 
him to use some modern terminology and to quote 
Brugmann with respect. But this sop to Cerberus is 
sufficient, and a notation conformed to Fick’s WV dérter- 
buch hints to the initiated that the mystic symbols 
of more recent invention must not be taken too 
seriously. Indeed a doubt has now and then insinu- 
ated itself whether certain dangerous neologians have 
in all cases even been read, but then are we not told 
in the preface that references and polemic are neces- 
sarily excluded in a compendium ? It is hardly need- 
ful to go into detail over so disappointing a perform- 
ance, but a few criticisms may be offered to save us 
from dismissing a bookful of ipse dixits in one cate- 
gorical statement of the same kind. 

We may begin with some samples of the results 
which our author has, no doubt after mature reflex- 
ion, ignored. Brugmann’s paper in the JJorpholo- 
gische Untersuchungen on the Sanskrit verbs of the 
yundjmi type has not prevented ‘ju-né-g-mi’ from 
appearing asa genuine I.E. form ; nay, more, we have 
a new theory of the other non-thematic nasal classes 
built on this eminently sound foundation, which only 
needs the reversal of the principles of vowel-contrac- 
tion to make a very pretty house of cards indeed. 
The ‘ aorist-present az6’ (sic) keeps its place, but we 
are not told what is the weakness of Hiitbschmann’s 
argument against it. The treatment of ‘ /és (sit)’ 
shows no trace of borrowing from Osthoff’s Perfekt. 
Moreover, without being very exacting, we might 
have expected some reference to sundry important 
papers which came out in good time for use, especi- 
ally Wackernagel on the first aorist passive (‘ ἐδόθης Ξε 
ddithas), and Zimmer on the Italo-Keltic ‘passive’ 
7. A few sins of commission may be added to pair off 
with these specimens of omission. The sonants may 
become anything they please: 7 is Gk. :pand pv, Lat. 
ri and rd, while ἢ) may be recognized in Gk. as ιν. 
Metathesis is presumably responsible for the equation 
between Skt. deyati and ὀπυίω. Prothesis is very 
freely used. In ‘a-vw, α-ἴδομαι,᾽ etc., it is not true, 
but neither is it new; in ‘Skt. dredmi =*redmni 
mit prothetischem a’ we may fairly congratulate Dr. 
Hoffmann on a new idea. Contraction brings sim 
out of siem, Vedic jigat out of *ji-gi-nt, and δάμναμι 
out of ἔδαμ-νέ-α-μι. The analogy of χθὲς and ἱκτῖνος 
proves that -diydi would become -θθαι, -σθαι: μέσος 
is an analogy not allowed to count. We may close 
with a real discovery, adumbrated in the cipher 
“ «ldvarar=Kd-v-a-ra’ (p. 136). A vocalic 5! Here is 
indeed a treasure. Will Mr. Hoffmann send us a 
phonogram to indicate its pronunciation 4 

J. H. Mounron. 


NOTES. 


Nore ON THUCYDIDES, v. 68 jin.—ém) δὲ βάθος 
ἐτάξαντο μὲν ov πάντες ὁμοίως, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς λοχαγὺς ἕκαστος 
ἐβούλετο, ἐπὶ πᾶν δὲ κατέστησαν ἐπὶ ὀκτώ. This 
Statement is puzzling, and has been discussed at 
length by Grote and others. It may mean, as Pro- 

NO. XXXI. VOL. IV. 


fessor Jowett suggests, that in some cases one part of 

the line was deepened at the expense of another, and 

the rear rank of one ἐνωμοτία posted behind another. 

Or possibly the ranks behind the first did not in- 

variably contain four men. Thus an arrangement of 
K 


130 


4, 3, 4 etc. would give 9 rows amounting to 32 men 
in all. But we must remember that Thucydides is 
not so much discussing the order of the Spartan sol- 
diers, as furnishing an estimate of their numbers. 
He ‘could not do this exactly,’ but he guarantees 
three things, the number of ἐνωμοτίαι, viz. 112; 
the number of men, 448, in the front rank; and 
the average (ἐπὶ πᾶν) depth, viz. 8. Now, if the 
number of men in each ἐνωμοτία was the same, we 
have not merely an approximate calculation, but an 
exact one, the very thing which Thucydides dis- 
claims. May it not then have been the case that, in 
one or more of the λόχοι, the ἐνωμοτία consisted of a 
number more or less than the standard 32? This 
would be a part of the ‘system of secrecy’ (ris 
πολιτείας τὸ κρυπτόν) ; and if it was privately man- 
aged by the military authorities we can see at once 
how the total number was ‘kept dark’ (ἠγνοεῖτο). 
According to the text this arrangement was left to 
the respective Aoxayot: but it may be that the clause 
ἀλλ᾽ ὡς λοχαγὸς ἕκαστος ἐβούλετο is spurious, as 
Dobree suspected. The ἐνωμοτία or ‘ section,’ which 
was the unit of the Spartan army, undoubtedly 
varied in size at different periods ; and may possibly 
have varied in different λόχοι or ‘regiments’ at the 
same period. This explanation seems not unreason- 
able, for if Thucydides had been sure of the number 
of men in each ἐνωμοτία, why did he not state it, in- 
stead of only giving the number in the front rank ? 


C. E. GRAVES. 
* * 
* 


CATULLIANUM.—Altis 62, 3. 


Quod enim genus figuraest ego non quod obierim ? 
Ego mulier, ego adolescens, ego ephebus, ego puer, 
Ego gymnasi fui flos, ego eram decus olei. 


Many proposals have been made to emend mu/ier, 
as ego puber, Scaliger; ego iwuenis, Rosekerg ; ego 
enim wir, Postgate ; but none which 1 have seen seems 
to me probable. I think that either mzutlier is sound, 
or miles should be substituted for it. O has mulieés, 
but too much weight is not to be attached to this. 
Miles would denote the fact that Attis had just arrived 
at military age, that of early manhood, not necessarily 
older than eighteen. 

A. PALMER. 
x % 
* 


Propertivs II, xxv. 19, 20. 


ultro contemptus rogat et peccasse fatetur 
laesus et inuitis ipse redit pedibus. 


The editors find no difficulty in inuitis...pedibus, 
but the words seem to me to strike a false note. Of 
course, expressions of this kind are suitable enough 
when they are used of a man halting between two 
opinions or of an inward desire repressed by a strong 
mental effort. Thus, for instance, in Ov. Rem. Am. 
218 sed quanto minus ire uoles magis ire memento: 
perfer et inuitos currere coge pedes we have described 
the lover’s resolution to tear himself from the em- 
brace of his mistress. But there is no room for a 
double purpose here: on the contrary, the coldness 
and fickleness of Cynthia are contrasted with the un- 
wavering fidelity of Propertius. Whatever the exact 
meaning Οὗ]. 17, it is clear that the poet's love is 
declared to be less susceptible of change than iron or 
granite under the influence of rust or dripping water. 
Where then is the justification of inuitis pedibus ? 
By substituting inuisis for inuitis, we obtain a perfect 
parallelism between ultro rogat, peccasse fatetur, and 
ipse redit on the one hand and contemptus, laesus, 
and inuisis pedibus on the other. It should be added 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


that F has inuictis, but the variation is unimportant : 
cf. 1. ii. 1 uita, F uicta; I. vii. 18 aeternos, F ecternos 
and many others. 


Propertius II. xx. 25. 
ergo qui pactas in foedera ruperit aras. 


So all Baehrens’ MSS. although G has actas and P 
fractas. Hertzberg defends pactas aras in foedera 
‘altar pledges given in troth’ by Ov. Met. ix. 722, 
but, if the context be examined, it will be found that 
pactae taedae means simply ‘the marriage which had 
been agreed upon.’ On the other hand, tangere aram 
is the regular phrase in these circumstances: Juy. 
xiii, 89 quaecunque altaria tangunt ; xiv. 219 Cereris 
tangens aramque pedemque; Liv. xxi. 1 Hanni- 
balem...altaribus admotum tactis sacris; Verg. Aen. 
xii. 201 tango aras. But for the harshness of 
ruperit aras, it would be easy to restore tactas...aras 
with most editions before Lachmann, who, while 
objecting to the use of rumpere, found less difficulty 
in the combination pactas aras rumpere. But it must 
first be shown that pactas aras is possible Latin. 
Perhaps we should read :—ergo qui tacta sua foedera 
ruperit ara: I find that tacta sic...ara has already 
been suggested by Mr. Housman. At the same time, 
it is difficult to affirm that tactas aras rumpere is 
impossible for Propertius: hardly less bold is LV. xi. 
3 cum semel infernas intrarunt funera leges. Simi- 
larly, in place of the normal παραβαίνειν νόμον, ὅρικον 
«.7.A., Herodotus has (vi, 12) τίνα δαιμόνων παραβάντες 
τάδε ἀναπίμπλαμεν ; 

A. C. PEARSON. 
Med 


On Mr. SEATON’s ‘ITERATIVE USE OF ἄν, Class. 
Rev., October, ’*89.—Omitting the reconciliation of the 
unreal or contrary-to-fact notion with the ideal or 
potential notion, J offer two remarks : 

(1) The term ‘condition’ asserts the simple rela- 
tion of antecedence and consequence—the latter being 
necessary. Whether this relation is always, some- 
times, never, fulfilled, or whether the fulfilment is 
uncertain—these practical accidents have nothing to 
do with the theory of condition. 

Moreover, the general—time, place, or term—is 
essentially conditional of its special applications : so 
the general statement, actually true as such, ‘A 
drowning man catches at straws,’ is conditionally 
true of any special ‘ drowning man.’ Hence to substi- 
tute ‘indefinite temporal’ for ‘conditional’ in itera- 
tive sentences is only to take the species for the 
genus, and does not get rid. of the conditional ac- 
knowledgment. 

(2) There is no difference between the phenomena 
reported by the imperfect aud the aorist, except ‘in 
the mind of the narrator.’ The aorist gives the 
simple yea or nay of occurrence, without taking 
account of the historical or spectacular incidents ; 
but it does not deny the existence of these in ignor- 
ing them to get at the upshot. Hence, the aorist 
carries latent what the imperfect exposes : so that the 
use of both for iteration isnot remarkable. Of course, 
the presence of ἄν only creates or emphasizes explicit- 
ness out of the implicit, since the gnomic aorist and 
the ordinary imperfect already involve iteration with- 
out ἄν. This explanation is distinctly opposed to 
Goodwin’s (Gk. Gr., ὃ 205, 2, N. 1), which is indeed 
self-contradictory. ‘One distinct case’ consorts as 
badly with πολλάκις as with οὔπω, as iteration for or 
against is inevitable. No doubt, the explanation is 
to be sought in Goodwin’s conception of ‘ animated 
language.’ 

CASKIE HARRISON. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


‘To ταν WorpswortH. Composed 
for the greater part on the same night after 
the finishing of his recitation of the poem 
in thirteen books, on the growth of his own 
mind’ (vide Knight’s Life of Wordsworth, 11. 
p. 184). 


: : : thy faithful hopes, 

Thy hopes of me, dear friend! by me unfelt ! 

Were troublous to me almost as a voice, 

Familiar once and more than musical : 

As a dear woman’s voice to one cast forth, 

A wanderer with a worn-out heart forlorn, 

’*Mid strangers pining with untended wounds. 

O friend! too well thou know’st of what sad 
years 

The long suppression had benumbed my soul, 

That, even as life returns upon the drowr’d, 

The usual joy awoke a throng of pain— 

Keen pangs of Love, awakening, as a babe, 

Turbulent with an outcry in the heart ! 

And fears self-willed, that shunn’d the eye 
of hope, 

And hope that scarce would know itself from 
fear ; 

Sense of past youth and manhood come in 
vain, 

And genius given and knowledge won in 
vain ; 

And all, which I had culled in wood-walks 
wild, 

And all, which patient toil had reared, 
and all 

Commune with THEE had open’d out—but 
flowers ; 

Strew’d on my corse, and borne upon my 
bier, 

In the same coffin, for the self-same grave. 


. . . 


S. T. CoLERIDGE. 


131 


κεκαρτέρηται Tapa. 

Ὁ > A 
Ais δ᾽ ἐλπίσιν σὺ τοῦδ᾽ ἀνελπίστου, φίλε, 
πιστὴν ἐβόσκου καρδίαν καρπούμενος, 

CART) .9} td ’, ΡΣ 
aid ἠρέθιζόν μ᾽, ὥσπερ εἰ φθόγγον ποτὲ, 

+ 3, ee / id ’ , 
εὔγνωστον ὄντα πρόσθεν, ἡδίω λύρας, 

΄ \ > 

φθόγγον γυναικὸς εὖ φιλουμένης, φυγὰς 


΄ see rn 
κλύοι τις ἀξένοισιν ἐνσεισθεὶς ὁδοῖς, 


ζι 


A 5 \ vo 
ὅς ἀμβλὺς ἤδη τἄνδον, οἰόφρων πλάνης, 
’ὔὕ Lal , 
φθίνει θυραῖος ἠπίας χειρὸς πόθῳ. 
+ 5 5 lal 
οὔτοι yap ἔλαθόν σ᾽, ὦ Pir’, ὡς πῆξάν μ᾽ ἔχει 
10 ἐτῶν δυσοίστων τὀυπικείμενον βάρος, 
oy > - 
ὥσθ᾽, οἷον ἀμπνέων τις ἐκσωθεὶς ἅλός, 
ων » ans <> a ΄σ Lal 
τῆς ἀλλοτ᾽ ἤλλαξ᾽ ἡδονῆς κῶμον κακῶν: 
we a 3 9 & ὦ 
ἔρως διῆλθε᾽ μ᾽, ὥσπερ ἐξ ὕπνου βρέφος 
ἐγερτὶ δηξίθυμον αἰάζων βοήν, 
- aug) 15 > 
15 εἶτ᾽ εὔφρον᾽ ἐκστὰς ἐλπίδ᾽ αὐθάδης φόβος, 
ἐλπίς τ᾽ ἄνελπις ἄφοβον οἰκόθεν φόβον 
(ΓΑ πὸ Ὁ) 3 / ΕΣ τα ἀντ 
αὑτῆς καταγνοῦσ - ησθόμην δ᾽ ὃ δύσμορος 
΄ “ @ 5 » ‘I ἊΝ ’,ὔὕ 
πάλαι παρηβῶν, εἶτ᾽ ἀπανδρωθεὶς μάτην, 
καὶ πνεῦμα θεῖον διὰ φρενὸς μάτην πνεών, 
20 μάτην τε σοφίαν εἰς ἄκραν ἀφιγμένος: 
Ν , SOs Ly ΄, ε , Φ rn 
καὶ πάνθ᾽, ὅσ᾽ ἀβάτους ἡυρόμην ὕλας πατῶν, 
Ων , > “ > > Ν > / is 
καὶ πάνθ᾽, ὅσ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐξέθρεψα, πάντα τε 
cr Ate a eres, > cs , 
ταῖς σαῖς ὅσ᾽ ἐξήνθησεν ἐν ξυνουσίαις, 


a Ν “-“ a 32a / 
φεῦ, λυγρὰ κεῖνα viv μ᾽ ὁρῶ λωτίσματα 


bo 
Ol 


νέκυν περιστέλλοντα καὶ λεχῶν ἔπι 


cae 4 / \ ‘\ ‘4 
ἐνὸς κύτους φόρημα πρὸς ταφὴν μίαν. 


W. T. Lenprum. 


OBITUARY. 


HENRY S. FRIEZE, LL.D. 


Professor of the Latin Language and Literature in the University of Michigan, 


Died 7th Dec. 1889. 


Tn the death of Professor Frieze, not only 
the University which he served with dis- 
tinction for more than thirty years, but 
also the wider circle of classical scholars 
aaa this country has suffered a great 
OSS. 


He was born in Boston, Mass., Sept. 15th, 
1817. In early youth his family removed to 
Rhode Island, and he was prepared for 
college in a private school at Newport. In 
1841 he was graduated from Brown Univer- 
sity at the head of his class. At once after 

K 2 


132 


graduation he accepted a tutorship in the 
University, which position he held for three 
years, when he became one of the principals 
of the University Grammar School in Prov- 
idence. In 1854 he was called to the chair 
of Latin in the University of Michigan. In 
connection with Dr. James R. Boise, who 
was then Professor of Greek, he placed 
classical studies upon such a broad and sure 
basis in the young University that, in spite 
of the βαναυσία spirit of our day and the strong 
trend toward scientific studies, the ancient 
classics have well maintained their position 
in the college curriculum. 

Professor Frieze from the first gave to his 
teachings what may be called the flavour of 
a noble realism. As he used to say, he was 
more desirous that his pupils should be 
Romans than that they should be Latinists. 
It was his constant aim to imbue his students 
with an interest in the old Roman life and 
literature. Hence from the beginning he 
accompanied his reading of texts with lec- 
tures on Roman history and antiquities. 
This same spirit became evident in his edi- 
torial work. His first edition of the Aeneid, 
which appeared in 1860, was characterized 
by fine literary sense, keen insight into the 
life and thought of the period portrayed by 
the poet as wellas of the Augustan age, and 
poetic appreciation of the author. It was 
one of the earliest text-books published in 
this country to give students the impression 
that the masterpieces of ancient literature 
were not written chiefly for the purpose of 
being the vehicle of grammatical learning ; 
not that Professor Frieze ignored the drier 
details of linguistic study, but rather that 
he placed the emphasis upon the literary 
qualities and the subject-matter of the au- 
thor in hand. 

He had no taste for the pursuit of textual 
criticism, and was but little interested in the 
details of purely philological science. But he 
had rare good judgment and an almost in- 
tuitive perception in matters of style and 
interpretation. 

In 1882 he revised his first edition of 
the Aeneid. The following year he edited 
the complete works of Vergil, with notes 
and dictionary, and a separate edition of the 
Georgics, Bucolics, and the first six books of 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the Aeneid. The entire work was revised 
again in 1887, soas to get the benefit of the 
most recent studies in Vergil. In 1865 
appeared the first edition of the 10th and 12th 
books of Quintilian, based upon the labours 
of Spalding, Zumpt, and Bonnell. This au- 
thor had never before been regularly read in 
an American college, so far as we know, and 
his value as a field of discipline in literary 
criticism was first recognized in this country 
by Prof. Frieze. The edition was greatly 
improved by a revision made in 1888, which 
was the last editorial work of note he 
accomplished. 

By years of study as well as by native 
endowment, Dr. Frieze was an enthusiastic 
lover of fine art and became a recognized 
authority in art criticism. A remarkably 
fine musician, a devoted student of architec- 
ture, sculpture and painting, art studies 
grew to be in his later years his most 
absorbing pursuit. For the last ten years 
he gave courses of lectures on the history 
of art. Under his fostering care there grew 
up large collections of casts, photographs, 
coins and engravings, and in 1886 he put 
forth a charming biography of Giovanni 
Dupré together with a translation of two 
dialogues on art from the Italian of Augusto 
Conti. 

Professor Frieze was twice called to admin- 
ister the affairs of the University as acting- 
president. He was the originator of many 
of the plans and innovations that have made 
it a leader in educational movements. Es- 
pecially noteworthy are these: the estab- 
lishing of the organic relation between the 
University and the High Schools, by which 
graduates from approved High Schools are 
admitted into the University without ex- 
amination ; the development of ‘the elective 
system ’and of graduate courses of study ; 
the introduction of the scientific study of 
music into the regular curriculum. 

In his personality Professor Frieze was 
one of the most delightful of men, ‘a pure 
and beautiful soul’ to know whom was a 
benediction. To the Greek ideal of the 6 καλὸς 
κἀγαθός he added the Christian graces of 
charity and humility. 

M. L. D’Ooce. 


Michigan University. 


ARCH AOLOGY. 


ATHENA PARTHENOS. 


Ir would be interesting to know on what 
principle the Athenians in the early part of 


the fourth century B.c. employed as a device, 
representative of the city, at one time the 
archaic figure of Athena Polias, at another 
the late type of Athena Parthenos, created 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


by Pheidias. On the Panathenaic prize- 
vases of that date the Athena is of the 
archaic form, while on a series of contempo- 
rary reliefs in marble which served as the 
headings of treaties or alliances we have 
the Parthenos. In these reliefs Athens in 
the person of Athena takes the hand of 
some other state. Athena is not so much 
the goddess as a symbol of the power of 
Athens, easily recognizable from the identity 
of her form with that of the famous statue 
by Pheidias. 

One would suppose that the Parthenos 
had been chosen for the device of the city 
on occasions when it was merely a question 
of some act of peace, as in these alliances 
or in the honorary decrees where she ap- 
pears in much the same type. But an ex- 
ception to this view of the matter is fur- 
nished by an engraved gem lately acquired 
by the British Museum. The gem is of 
sard and in the form of a scaraboid mounted 
ona silver ring. It was found in Cyprus, 
and from the style of the engraving it 
belongs to a date shortly after 400 B.c. The 
subject consists of a figure of Athena stand- 
ing to the front, wearing her helmet and 
aegis. At her left side are the shield and 
spear, the shield resting on the ground. At 
her right side is the serpent associated with 
her worship on the Acropolis of Athens. So 
far she answers perfectly to the Parthenos 
of Pheidias, and indeed the engraver, to get 
the resemblance to the face of the Parthenos 
more distinct, has enlarged the head out of 
proportion to the rest of the figure. But 
whereas the Parthenos held out a figure of 
Victory in her right hand, the Athena on 
the gem holds out in her right hand the 
acrostolion or ornament on the stern of a 
ship, and this, as we know from ancient 
records, was the recognised emblem of a 
naval victory. It was not the only emblem 
of a naval victory, because Herodotus (viii. 
122) tells us that the Aeginetans recorded 
their share in the battle of Salamis by 
setting up at Delphi a bronze mast with 
three golden stars at the top, ἐπὶ τῆς γωνίης, 
whatever that may precisely mean. But the 
usual emblem was an acrostolion or acro- 
terion as it was also called. The Athena on 
the gem must therefore refer to some naval 
victory. 

On a silver coin of Cyprus, bearing a 
Cypriote inscription which is supposed to 
refer to a king of Citium, Demonicos (B.c. 
400-368), we see a figure of Athena very 
much of the same type as on our gem. But 
on the coin she sits on the prow of a ship, 
holding out the acrostolion in her right 


133 


hand. This coin is engraved as a vignette 
to Kekulé’s Keliefs an der Balustrade der 
Athena Nike, and whether rightly or not as- 
signed to Citiuin, it clearly commemorates a 
naval battle in which Athens had directly or 
indirectly aided one of the Cypriote towns, as 
in fact she was constantly doing in the be- 
ginning of the fourth century B.c., by sending 
such ships as she could spare. [ is possible 
that our new gem belongs to this same cate- 
gory of memorials of a naval victory in 
which Athens had aided some one of the 
Cypriote towns, in which case the Athena 
would play the same ré/e as on the reliefs of 
the alliances and honorary decrees. It may 
be objected, however, that this view of the 
matter gives too much importance to the 
fact of the gem having been found in Cyprus. 
So small an object could well have been im- 
ported from Athens, where it may have been 
engraved with reference to some purely 
Athenian victory at sea. These are possi- 
bilities. But the character of the art is 
against them. The gem, though extremely 
beautiful and attractive, shows on a close in- 
spection that it owes much of its attract- 
iveness to the original from which it has 
been copied. In itself it fails in several 
points where an Athenian engraver of the 
time would hardly have failed. 

In his interesting paper on ‘ Personifica- 
tions of Cities in Greek Art,’ which appeared 
in the Hellenic Journal for 1888, Professor 
Gardner dealt briefly (p. 59) with certain 
instances in which a naval victory was com- 
memorated by a figure holding out an acro- 
stolion. There was the figure personifying 
Salamis which Panaenos painted on the 
barrier of the throne of Zeus at Olympia, 
and there was the colossal statue which the 
Greeks set up at Delphi in memory of that 
same battle. Herodotus (viii. 121) says that 
the Greeks sent to Delphia quantity of the 
spoils, adding, ἐκ τῶν ἐγένετο ἀνδριὰς ἔχων ἐν 
τῇ χερὶ ἀκρωτήριον νεός. Professor Gardner 
concludes that this statue was a personitica- 
tion of Salamis, just such as Panaenos after- 
wards painted at Olympia. But that ex- 
planation, though perfectly reasonable in 
itself, is not without a difficulty. Pausanias 
(x. 14, 3) says that the Greeks set up at 
Delphi a statue of Apollo to commemorate 
their deeds at Cape Artemision and at 
Salamis, ἀπὸ ἔργων τῶν ἐν ταῖς ναυσὶν ἐπί τε 
᾿Αρτεμισίῳ καὶ ἐν Σαλαμῖνι. It seems to me 
that this must be the statue of which He- 
rodotus spoke, and if that is so, then between 
these two writers we ought to think of the 
statue as an Apollo holding out an acrostolion 
in one hand. That does not seem to me an 


- 


134 


improbable conception. It would be a 
counterpart to the Athena on our gem. 
A. S. Murray. 


ARION. 


Is the poet Arion of Methymna a real 
person? He has doubtless been frequently 
dissolved, but he has persistently recrystal- 
lized, for I find him cited in the most recent 
books as the inventor of the dithyramb. 
The only evidence for his existence which 
need be considered is that of Herodotus, 
who writes as follows: ‘Periander was 
tyrant of Corinth. The most wonderful 
thing that the Corinthians tell about him is 
the story of how Arion of Methymna, the 
first κιθαρῳδός of his time, and as far as is 
known the inventor and namer of the dithy- 
ramb which he produced in Corinth, was 
carried to Taenarus on a dolphin’s back. 
(The Lesbians confirm this).’ Such seems to 
me to be the sense of the passage. It is 
improbable that Herodotus wishes us to 
understand that the Lesbians are also his 
authorities for the statement that Arion 
produced the first dithyramb in Corinth. He 
then goes on to tell the well-known tale, 
how Arion undertook a tour in Italy and 
Sicily, the America of his time, with the 
object of making money, how on his return 
he took passage in a Corinthian ship at 
Tarentum, and the rest. At the end he 
again states that the story is so told both in 
Lesbos and at Corinth, and then he adds: 
‘There is at Taenarus a little bronze 
offering made by Arion, a man riding on a 
dolphin.’ That the identical story with all 
its poetry and all its Corinthian touches 
was told as a Volksmérchen both at Corinth 
and in Lesbos is impossible.. All we can 
get from Herodotus is: ‘This is what the 
Corinthians narrate and the same story is 
told in Lesbos.’ He gives us the whole in 
equal good faith, but it has been tacitly or 
overtly resolved into a historical and mythi- 
cal portion: historical, Arion of Methymna 
the dithyrambic poet at Periander’s court ; 
mythical, his shipwreck and ride on the 
dolphin. I believe that this division is un- 
justifiable and that Arion is just as mythi- 
cal, or in fact the same, as his namesake the 
gifted horse. 

That Arion was a local divinity, at or near 
Taenarus, not unconnected with horses, is 
established by the evidence of an old Spartan 
inscription (1.4.4. No, 79), from which we 
learn that there was in Laconia a goddess 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


called ’Apiovria in whose ‘temenos’ hippic 
contests were held. ᾿Αριοντία is unquestion- 
ably derived from ’Apiwy. Rohl (ad loc.) 
conjectures that she may be the same as the 
᾿Δφροδίτη ’Apeia of Sparta, but I have little 
hesitation in pronouncing her to be a Demeter 
corresponding very closely to the Demeter 
Erinys of Thelpusa, the mother of the horse 
Arion, and to the analogous Demeter 
Melaina of Phigaleia, whose horse-headed idol 
held a dolphin in its hand. The statuette 
at 'Taenarus, apparently inscribed with the 
name of Arion, represented, not a horse, but 
a man riding on a dolphin, and very 
probably (although Herodotus does not say 
so) holding a lyre lke the Phalanthus on 
the coins of Brentesium.t We should have 
called it a statuette of Apollo Delphinios. 
The very close connection of Apollo Del- 
phinios with Poseidon Hippios and _ his 
horse-children can be so widely illustrated, 
that its complete demonstration is impossible 
here. The conclusions to which I have been 
led are these: — 

The oldest oracles in Greece were water- 
oracles aud belonged to Poseidon. 

The horse and dolphin were manifesta- 
tions of Poseidon especially in his oracular 
character. 

Apollo when he succeeded to Poseidon as _ 
an oracle-god inherited these emblems. 

It may be well, as we are here concerned 
with Taenarus, to give some facts concern- 
ing it which illustrate these propositions, 
although the legends of Delphi and other 
places are more conclusive. There is at 
Taenarus a trace of a disused Poseidonian 
oracle, a magic well in which people saw, not 
indeed the future, but the ships and the 
harbour (Paus. IIL 25). Associated with 
Taenarus (see Miiller, Orchomenos, p. 309) is 
Euphemus the son of Poseidon and Europa 
(another form of Demeter Erinys), whose 
mantic character is indicated by his gene- 
alogy, by his name, and by the story in 
Pindar’s fourth Pythian that he received 
from the Triton Eurypylos? the prophetic 
clod. Apollo Delphinios in the Homeric 
hymn comes to Taenarus in his progress to 
Delphi, a progress which consists of a 
pilgrimage to, and annexation of, various 
Poseidonian sanctuaries, and we find 


1 Phalanthus also appears in hand-books as a 
historical person, but he has been recently dis- 
posed of by Studniezka (Kyrene, Appendix 1.) 
May there be something horsey in his name and 
may he be connected with the κατὰ πρύμναν ἥρως of 
Phalteron ? 

2 Eurypylus himself is a son of Poseidon and 
Celaeno—an oracular Poseidon who like so many 
others has found his ultimate home in the sea, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Apollo’s rights here sanctioned by the old 
distich :— 

σόν τοι Δῆλόν τε Καλαύρειάν τε νέμεσθαι 

ΠΠυθώ τ᾽ ἠγαθέην καὶ Tatvapoy ἠνεμοέσσαν 

(Paus. IT. 33). 

So far the association of Arion of 
Methymna with the Arion of Taenarus is to 
some extent accounted for. What makes 
me doubt the historical character of the 
former is that at Methymna we find the 
Apollo-Delphinios legend, and we find it 
there in two forms which, taken together, 
admirably illustrate the connection of Apollo 
Delphinios with Poseidon Hippios. The 
local name of the god or hero is here 
Enalus. According to the story told by 
Plutarch (Seip. Conv. vii. 20) he was in 
love with the daughter of Smintheus (Apollo 
Smintheus, probably an oracle god). When 
she was cast into the sea he followed her, 
but was saved by a dolphin and brought to 
land, where he was worshipped. Anticleides 
(cf. Athen. XI. 466) does not speak of the 
dolphin, but relates how Enalus was drowned 
and how many years afterwards he appeared 
from the sea and told that he shepherded 
the horses of Poseidon. Here then, if we 
suppose Herodotus’ testimony to imply that 
the dolphin story was told in Lesbos abouta 
person called Arion of Methymna, we have 
good reasons for not dissociating this Arion 
from the horse Arion. 

It may be the result of chance that we 
know of no other mythical Arion at 
Methymna. At Miletus, with its neigh- 
bouring spring oracle of Branchidae and with 
its dolphin-rider Coeranus, the name ἐδ 
found as that of an old king connected by 
legend with Hesione, whose story is similar 
to that of the daughter of Smintheus. 

The dithyramb (whatever it was) may or 
may not have been invented at Corinth. I 
think from the preceding considerations that 
it is dangerous to state as a historical fact 
that it was first produced there by a native 
of Methymna called Arion. 

W. RB. Paton. 


ACQUISITIONS OF BRITISH MUSEUM. 


1. A chisel, axe and knife in bronze, from a small 
island Suria (probably the ancient Nisyros), north of 
Carpathos, 

2. Three vases from primitive (‘island’) graves in 
Antiparos. ‘Two are of terracotta, roughly made with- 
out the wheel, and decorated with vertical bands of 
herringbone pattern incised: the one is in the form 
of a pyxis 4 in. high, with holes pierced in the lid for 
fastening to two corresponding loops pinched outin the 
sides: the other is like a small lebes upon a foot, 
narrowing at the neck. The third vase is of marble 
(lychnites), and is a goblet of simple form, almost 
cylindrical, but narrowing towards the foot: on 


135 


opposite sides are two slight projections, pierced as 
if for attachment, possibly of a lid now missing. 

3. A series of objects excavated in 1889 by Mr. and 
Mrs. Theodore Bent in the island of Bahrein in the 
Persian Gulf—a description of this island was given 
by Mr. Bent in the Classical Review ante vol. iii. p. 420. 
They consist of :— 

(i.) Fragments of ivory, including one piece carved 
with the hoof of a bull and others incised with rude 
patterns. 

(ii.) Fragments of ostrich egos which seem to have 
been decorated with colour and incised designs. 

(iii.) Fragments of bronze and pottery. 

A fuller account of the expedition and its results is 
printed in the Proceedings of the Royal Geographical 
Society, January 1890. 

4, A series of marbles which were brought to this 
country in the beginning of the present century by 
Lord Spencer (see Michaelis, dnc. Marbles, p. 716) 
who then resided at Wimbledon Park. They consist 
of :-— 

(i.) Marble vase cylindrical in form, sculptured 
with eight female figures in relief, and inscribed with 
a dedication as follows: Ζώπυρος Ζωπύρου τὸν οἶκον 
‘Eorla καὶ τῷ Δάμῳ in letters of a late period : see 
Michaelis bid. 

(ii.) Marble drum of a fluted column—Michaelis 
thought that the drum and sculpture combined might 
have belonged to a columna caelata—this is impossible 
on the score of size. 

(iii.) Square block of granite. 

5. Four vases of lychnites and four of terracotta 
hand-made and roughly baked: from primitive 
(island) graves in Antiparos. 

6. Three objects from the collection of the Earl of 
Carlisle ; 

(i.) The krater signed by Python, described in 
Klein Meisters.? p. 210, see also Michaelis in Hellenic 
Journal 1885, p. 40. These publications render a 
detailed description unnecessary here: it is sufficient 
to state that the obverse side represents the apotheosis 
of Alkmena: she sits on an altar (7) at the back of a 
burning pyre, in an attitude of appeal to Z:-us who is 
half seen in an upper plane on the left. The pyre is 
being lighted with torches on either side by Amphi- 
tryon and Antenor. Above Alkmene is the arch of 
the sky represented like a rainbow, within which the 
entire space is painted with white dots representing 
mist (ἢ. From the upper part of this arch two 
Hyades half seen pour water upon the pyre from their 
hydriae—and Zeus has launched two thunderbolts 
which lie on either side of the pyre. The figure of 
Zeus is balanced by that of Eos (AQ) half seen. 
Each of the figures in the design has the name incised 
above the head. 

On the reverse is Dionysos (youthful) ; moving 
between two dancing maenads. Above him is half 
seen a figure like himself: and on either side in this 
upper plane a Satyr and a curious type of the goat- 
legeed Pan, half seen, with uplifted arms. 

The obverse does not seem to have been retouched 
as much as Michaelis suggests: the altar(?) on the 
obverse has been restored as a sarcophagus with pillars, 
and the pyre and thunderbolts seem retouched, but 
this is all. The name of Amphitryon terminates in 


an H instead of an N : and Python’s name has © in- 
stead of © as Klein gives it. 

(ii.) and (iii.) Two large phalerac of chaleedony in 
excellent condition. The one (4 in. high.) represents 
the upper half of a Roman boy. The other (3 in. 
high) is smaller, but the boy has a topknot and 
carries a bunch of grapes resting against his chest. 


Crcin SMITH. 


136 


Thr ErHNoLocic AFFINITIES OF THE ANCIENT 
Erruscans.—In Mr. Brinton’s paper read before the 
American Philosophical Society we are invited to a 
fresh argument on the much disputed subject of the 
origin of the ancient Etruscans. We are asked by 
him to consider the possibility of their early home 
having been in the north of Africa, in a portion of 
the province of Algiers, known as ‘La Grande 
Kabylie,’ and inhabited by the Kabyles, ‘the most 
direct descendants of the ancient Libyans.’ 1 

His general conclusions may be briefly summa- 
rized as follows :— 

1. Geographical Position. In common with the 
general belief, he holds that they were intruders on 
Italian soil, and that the unanimous testimony of 
antiquity points to their having come from the 
south. By tradition and religious custom, the city 
of Tarquinii, the modern Corneto, a few miles north 
of Civita Vecchia, has been generally fixed upon as 
their earliest permanent settiement. Here it was 
that the priests and soothsayers resorted to perfect 
themselves in the ‘Etruscan discipline,’ and here 
also their hero god Tages, who taught them the art 
of divination and the nobler possibilities of life, came 
into being. 

2. Physical Traits. The notion of their having 
been short in stature, thick-set and dark is, in his 
opinion, partly taken from representations on cinerary 
urns and partly from the writings of two late Roman 
poets—Virgil and Catullus. He, however, draws at- 
tention to the fact that actual measurements, made 
by Italian anatomists, of many skeletons show them 
to have been an unusually tall race, the average 
being nearly five feet nine inches. This is but slightly 
above the average height of the Kabyles. He further 
points out that cranial measurements show almost 
identically the same result, and that the skulls in 
both instances are of the long type—dolicocephalic. 

3. Culture Elements. That the ancient Etruscans 
came from a distance he considers evidenced by 
their not having apparently possessed, originally, 
the higher arts of life, and by the fact that their 
alphabet appears to have been derived directly from 
the Greek : also by their having possessed character- 
istics (such, for example, as the position of social 
equality assigned to women which still prevails 
amongst the Kabyles, notwithstanding their con- 
nection with Mohammedanism) not pertaining to the 
nations in the midst of which they settled. He also 
shows that the main feature of their political institu- 
tions, confederation, differed from that of their neigh- 
bours, and was in common with that prevailing in 
North Libya, as evidenced by the very meaning of 
the word Kabyle—the Arabic q’bail—confederation. 

4, Language. The author, in instituting a com- 
parison between the Etruscan and Lybian or Kabyle 
languages, points out that difficulties are occasioned 
by an insufficient knowledge of the Lybian tongues, 
ancient and modern, and by the fact that the prin- 
cipal remains of the Etruscan language consist of 
short sepulchral inscriptions. He agrees with two 
of the best authorities in assigning a masculine and 
feminine form to the nouns—in this resembling the 
Libyan. Also that, although conjugations and de- 
clensions have not been finally defined, a terminal s 
added to words is believed to be a sign of the genitive 
or possessive case, and in the Libyan dialect the 
terminal s is found with the same possessive sig- 
nification. Many words in the two languages are 


1 The suggestion made by Dr. Brinton of the 
Libyan origin of the Etruscans is not new, although 
he seems to regard it as such. Vide Dennis’ Cities 
and Cemeteries of Etruria, introduction vol. i., page 
xxxix., third edition. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


compared, but want of space prevents more than one 
or two being given. 

‘ Aesar, a god, may be derived from the Libyan 
asr, light; esan, lightning. Lightning is the con- 
stant accompaniment of the chief Etruscan deity.’ 

Ath, man; ara, descendants ; atar, family. These 
words frequently recur on sepulchral inscriptions and 
constitute one of the strongest points of evidence, for 
in ail Libyan tribes the syllable at, ar, ath, or wit 15 
the sign of tribal kinship. 


᾿Αφροδίτη ὡπλισμένη. ---΄π the first part of the 
‘Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias’ of MM. 
Imhoof-Blumer and Perey Gardner (J.H.S. vol. VI. 
p. 75) we find as many as seven autotypes of coins (i.) 
of Corinth bearing types of an Aphrodite which are 
manifestly derived from the same original and, as more 
than one coin indicates, froma temple statue and from 
a temple in Acro-Corinthus. One is marked autono- 
mous, but all the others belong to Hadrian and later 
emperors. An Eros is in attendance on most, in 
other cases a second appears (cf. Pindar’s Corinthian 
Scholion, ματέρ᾽ ἐρώτων οὐρανίαν). We cannot doubt 
that these coins reproduce the type better or worse of 
the statue of Aphrodite which Pausanias saw on 
ascending Acro-corinthus. ᾿Ανελθοῦσι δὲ ἐς τὸν 
᾿Ακροκόρινθον ναός ἐστιν ᾿Αφρυδίτης, ἀγάλματα δὲ αὐτή 
τε ὡπλισμένη καὶ Ἥλιος καὶ Ἔρως ἔχων τόξον, Xi, 
i, al. 

The epithet here given to Aphrodite misled Lenor- 
mant into regarding the helmeted head on the early 
autonomous coins of Corinth as that of the armed 
Aphrodite ; this statue was evidently not helmeted, 
and there is no record to appeal to beyond the passage 
of Pausanias. But it is as well to observe further 
that the coins are proof of the sense in which 
Pausanias used ὡπλισμένη, being simply ‘equipped 
with a shield,’ not armed generally. See Liddell and 
Scott for the later limitation of ὅπλον to the shield 
alone, exclusively not only of offensive weapons, but . 
even of cuirass, helmet, ὅθ. Aphrodite stands un- 
draped to the hips and holding up a shield—that of 
Ares of course—as a mirror. It is rather adventurous 
to lay down that ‘this is a motive natural to Roman 
rather than to Greek art, and we may be almost sure 
that the statue does not date from an earlier period 
than Julius Caesar: indeed to his time it would be 
peculiarly appropriate, considering his descent and 
pretensions.’ We are scarcely entitled to limit the 
range of motives in Greek art of the best time. The 
Scholion of Pindar warns us that the worship of the 
goddess at Corinth was at its height before Rome 
was heard of. The figure on the coin represents, in 
pose of limbs and turn of body, the identical type of 
the Venus of Melos and the bronze Victory of 
Brescia : only that the artist—so to call him—evaded 
the difficulty of showing the shield resting on the 
mid-thigh by calling on the goddess—more absurdly 
than audaciously—to sustain it freely without a 
rest. 

As the Brescian Victory is not contemplating her 
reflection but inscribing names of warriors on the 
shield, it is quite appropriately that she has the 
additional drapery of a tunic. 

W. Warkiss Lioyp. 


Rémische Mittheilungen. 1889, part 1. Rome. 

1. Mau; excavations in Pompeii 1886—88 ; a de- 
tailed description of the houses in insula ix. 7, con- 
sisting principally of shops, taverns etc. : plan. 2. 
Wolters : notes on Greek portrait sculpture : (i) Se- 
leukos Nikator and (ii) Ptolemy Soter: (i) a bronze 
bust from the villa at Herculaneum, Comparetti La 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Villa Ere. Taf. 10, I p. 264. 19: (ii.) marble bust in 
the Louvre no 457: two plates, two cuts. 3. Hiil- 
sen: antiquities of the Monte Citorio ; (i) the Colon- 
na del Divo Pio: (ii) ancient building excavated in 
1703 under the casa della missione (from a MS. with 
several cuts in text). 4. Petersen: the Hera of Al- 
kamenes : Overbeck Kwnstm. iii. p. 461 has collected 
the copies in statuary of this type: reproductions of 
it are found in reliefs of about B.c. 400: three cuts. 
Reports of meetings with summaries of some papers 
read : esp. (see p. 85) Petersen on an archaic statue 
of an Amazon shooting and on Athena among the 
nine Muses on the frieze of the forum of Nerva (with 
three cuts). 
Cs: 
The same. 1889, part 2. Rome. 


1. Gamurrini; the matrimonium IJtalicum ; pub- 
lishing an early Etruscan relief from a tomb at Chiusi 


representing this rite: plate. 2. Mau; excava- 
tions in Pompeii 1886—88 (continued). 3. Winne- 


feld : antiquities of Alatri (anc. Aletrium, a city of 
the Hernici with pre-Roman fortifications), excavated 
in this year: (i) the architectural remains, (ii) the 
temple, (iii) a Roman inscription of the time of the 
Gracchi, recording the public works carried out by L. 
Betilienus : seventeen cuts, two plates. 4. Schneider: 
on the Attic vase-painters; publishing the Glau- 
kytes cup in B.M. (B 364.), the Anakles (?) cup 
(Klein AMeisters.” p. 76, no. 3) and the cup (Klein, 
ibid. p. 75 note) which he reads as by Tleson : plate, 
two cuts. 5. Wernicke: bronzes of Epidauros, be- 
longing to Count Tyskiewicz: specially interesting 
is a statuette inscribed Ὑβρίστας ἐποίηξε ; four cuts. 
6. Mommsen : miscellanea epigraphica. 7. Hiilsen: 
the cestus of ancient boxers: four cuts. 8. Dessau: 
epigraphical notes. Reports of meetings: two cuts. 


Cas: 


Arch.-Epig. Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich. 1888, 
part. 2. Vienna. 

1. Klein: studies in the history of Greek Paint- 
ing (continued:) II. the Helladic and Asiatic 
schools: a long article, full of important suggestions 
and emendations. 2. Weinberger: on the honorary 
decreee from Tomi (see ante, vol. xi. p. 41, no. 55): 
emendations and suggested restoration of the whole. 
3. v. Premerstein: on the inscription CZ, Z. iii. 4037. 
4. The same: note on ante, xi. p. 240. 5. v. Do- 
maszewski: bronze plate with bronze figures at- 
tached, found in the Siebenbiirgen ; forming the de- 
coration of a Roman horse trapping: plate. 6. Hau- 
ser: report of excavations in Carnuntum: with 7. 
Schmidel : the find in the amphitheatre there ; and 
8. Bormann the inscriptions : tour plates, and three 
cuts. 9. Hiilsen ; a Roman street in Servia. 10. 
Kubitschek : the so-called ‘Roman sarcophagus’ in 
Gumpoldskirchen : this trough, the only evidence of 
Roman conquest in this neighbourhood, has two in- 
scriptions which are not ancient: the trough is not 
ancient either. 11. Bormann: the ancient inserip- 
tions at Wodena (Edessa). 


137 


Zeitschrift fiir Numismatik (Berlin), Bd. xvii. Heft 
1. 1890. 


A. Loebbecke. ‘Griechische Miinzen aus meiner 
Sammlung. iv.’ (Plates I. II). Among these may 
be noticed :—Arnae in Macedonia. The coins attri- 
buted to this place by Millingen and Head would 
seem rather to be of some Italian city. Loebbecke 
obtained six specimens from Naples together with a 
number of coins of Italy. Dicaea (Thrace). Archaic 
tetradrachm with head of Herakles ; a new denomi- 
nation. Sicyon. Rare gold coins of the fourth 
century B.C. with typesof Apollo and Dove. Loebbecke 
suggests some good reasons for believing in their 
genuineness. Phaestus. An interesting variety of 
the staters representing Talos the winged guardian of 
Crete, accompanied by his dog. Dardanus. Elec- 
trum stater, type, ‘cock with mussel in mouth.’ The 
‘mussel’ however is more like a fish’s head such as 
appears on electrum coins of Cyzicus. Ceretape 
(Phrygia). Coin of Caracalla with his name Bassianus. 
Siocharax (Phrygia). A coin of Geta with the name 
of the town Siocharax, a place apparently identical 
with Hierocharax.—Otto Seeck. ‘Die Miinzpolitik 
Diocletians und seiner Nachfolger.’ 


WARWICK WROTH. 
Numismatische Zeitschrift (Vienna). vol. xxi. 
January—June 1889. 


W. Drexler. ‘Der Isis- und Sarapis-cultus in 
Kleinasien.’ A collection of inscriptions, and other 
moruments, especially coins, relating to the worship of 
Isis and Sarapis in Asia Minor (exclusive of the ad- 
jacent islands). The paper contains much useful 
material, but a summary of results and the curtail- 
ment of some of the numismatic descriptions and re- 
ferences would have rendered it more convenient for 
consultation.—A. Markl. ‘Gewicht und Silber- 
gehalt der Antoniniane von Claudius IJ. Gothicus.’ 


Wee 


Numismatic Chronicie, Part iv. 1889. 

E. Thurston. ‘On a recent discovery of Roman 
coins in Southern India.’ A find of fifteen Roman 
Aurei at Vinukonda (Madras Presidency). They 
are coins, in good preservation, of Tiberius, Vespasian, 
Domitian, Hadrian, Ant. Pius, Faustina I., M. 
Aurelius, Commodus and Caracalla. —G. M. Arnold. 
‘The Roman station of Vagniacae.’ Southfleet, not 
Maidstone, is Vagniacae. Remarks on coins found at 
Southfleet.—F. Latchmore. ‘On a find of Roman 
coins near Cambridge.’ A hoard of about 2,500 
coins discovered early in 1889 ‘near Cambridge’ in 
two Roman jars; the coins range in date from 
Gordian III. (A.p. 238) to Aurelian (A.D. 270). 
There were 858 of Tetricus I. and IJ., 634 of Victor- 
inus, and 411 of Postumus.—Miscellanea. C. Oman. 
Coin with the name and bust of Maximianus Herculius 
struck at Colchester. 

Ἄν: 


SUMMARIES OF PERIODICALS. 


Journal of Philology. Vol. xviii. No. 36. 

THis number contains several important articles on 
textual criticism. W. Leaf points out the grave de- 
fects in La Roche’s apparatus criticus on the JJiad, 
and suggests certain criteria for determining the com- 


parative value of the MSS. By the use of these he 
establishes the ‘overwhelming importance’ of the 
Leipzig group of MSS., as preserving an extremely 
ancient tradition unknown to any of our other MSS. 
E. G. Hardy gives an account of a Bodleian MS. of 


198 


Jerome’s Eusebian Chronicle, which strangely enough 
seems to have been entirely neglected, till attention 
was called to it by a German visitor about two years 
ago. Yet it is at least a hundred years older than any 
other MS., having been written by an intelligent and 
accurate scribe within a century of Jerome’s death. 
A new edition based on this MS. is being prepared by 
Dr. A. Schoene. J. Armitage Robinson argues against 
Dr. Koetschau, that V (the Vatican Gr. 386) is the 
original of all our MSS. of Origen against Celsus, 
Robinson Ellis gives an account of the Codex Moreti, a 
12th century MS. of Ovid used by Heinsius. Of the 
other papers the most interesting are those by H. 
Nettleship on literary criticism in Latin Antiquity, 
and by C. Taylor on the relation between the Shepherd 
of Hermas and the Didaché. A. Platt propounds a 
theory as to the origin of the lambic Trimeter ; J. P. 
Postgate writes on ne prohibitive with the second 
person of the present subjunctive in classical Latin ; 
R. Ellis has two emendations on Lucretius and notes 
on some epigrams of the Greek anthology; and H. 
Nettleship closes with a note on Georg. 1. 263. 


Transactions of the Cambridge Philological 
Society, Vol. III. P. ii. 


Notes on the Spiritus Asper. HH. D. Darbishire.— 
The object of this paper is to show that the pheno- 
mena of the rough breathing in Greek are much more 
recular than is usually supposed. After premising 
that the rough breathing is the independent develop- 
ment of eaeh 1. KE. language in which it is found and 
varies in its phonetic value, the writer states and illus- 
trates the ordinary rules that in Greek it represents 
original s, v, su, 1, stinitial. In the text-books a num- 
ber of exceptions are recognised. These are to be ex- 
plained as the result of analogy e.g. ἅδην on the model 
of ἁνδάνω, or dissimilation e.g. ἔδαφος for ἑδαφος (σεδα- 
gos) according to Grassmann’s law. But where the 
breathing cannot be so explained and a rule is broken 
we must regard the received etymology as mistaken. 
For instance éreds must not be referred to satya 
because of the smooth breathing, but must be re- 
garded asa verbal of ἦμί and compared with Lat. 
verus ; ἄσμενος again is not to be connected with 
ἥδομαι, but referred to aroot van, cf. Lat. Venus ; ἄλτο 
must be severed from G&AAoua and placed beside 
ἀλείς. There are many cases where the presence or 
absence of aspiration is not persistent. ‘These must 
be explained either by misplacement of the aspirate, 
a doubtful principle, or by assimilation to connected 
words ¢.g. ὅρπηξ on the analogy of ἅρπη, or thirdly 
the confusion is due to the intermixture of different 
roots. Thus from the root sel we have aspirated words 
ἑλίσσω, &e. ; from the root 72d unaspirated εἴλω, &e. 
This leads to confusion, ¢.g. ἐλύω, ἑλύω, &e. Again 
the variation of ἄνυω, aviw is to be referred to the 
roots san and van ; similarly εἴργω and efpyw imply 
two roots, and ἱερός (iapés), Sk. 7sivas, has been as- 
similated to ἱρός from the root v7. We now come to 
the question of initial F. Why is this sometimes re- 
presented by the rough, sometimes by the smooth 
breathing? This is to be explained by the help of 
Armenian. It is generally recognised that the 
initial ὁ can be distinguished from initial spirant y 
c.g. 1ag- appears in Gk. ἧπαρ but yug- in Gk. ζυγόν. 
Hitherto no distinction has been made between wu and 
the spirant ἡ. Mr. Darbishire shows that Armenian 
has sometimes g and sometimes v, w, where Latin and 
Sanskrit have v. Now in Greek where initial F 
answers to Armenian g we have the smooth breathing, 
where it answers to Armenian v, w, we find the rough 
breathing. Upon this ground then we are to assume 
an original distinction between u and v and can ex- 
plain the variation of the breathing in Greek. Thus 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


from the root wes comes ἔαστυ ἄστυ, but from the 
root ves εννυμι ἕννυμι. It will be seen that the 
chief points of interest in the paper are the explana- 
tion of variatious of breathing by the assumption of 
different roots, and the distinction of original w and », 
which is the most important and ingenious. Many 
will hardly be robust enough to separate some of the 
words which we have al] been taught to regard as 
cognates. Thus ἕως and αὔως (4ws), and ἦμαρ and 
ἡμέρα ave to be divorced. But even supposing that 
some of the writer’s etymologies are not altogether 
convincing the paper is a valuable and suggestive at- 
tempt to bring under phonetic laws what has hitherto 
been left unexplained. The representation of original 
w- by Greek ὑ- he has himself to leave unaccounted 
‘for. J. HE. K. 


Meeting of the Philological 
Society. 

At the Annual General Meeting of the Society, on 
Jan. 30, 1890, the President, Dr. Peile, read a paper in 
which he called attention to a modification in the 
latest editions of Paul’s Principien, pp. 58—60, and 
Brugmann’s Greek Grammar, p. 11 (in Miiller’s 
Handbuch, &c.), of the doctrine of the inyariability 
of phonetic sequence. Paul distinguishes from the 
examples of regular substitution of one sound for 
another, others not regular which he describes as in- 
terchange in certain definite cases. These are (1) 
metathesis, 6.0. wasp=A.S. weeps, ψεξε σφε, where 
the sounds are consecutive, or O.H.G. ezzih (now 
essig)=acetum, where they are not consecutive, (2) 
assimilation of two sounds not consecutive, as quin- 
que for Idg. penqe, (3) dissimilation, as pelegrinus 
for peregrinus ; or δρύφακτος for *Spuppaxtos, where 
r is lost, or semestris for semimestris, where a syllable 
nearly the same as the following syllable falls out. 
Jn like manner Brugmann distinguishes gradual and 
progressive substitutions of sound from metatheses 
which take place by sudden transition. The writer 
of the paper gave reasons for inferring that Brugmann, 
though he only specifies metatheses, yet may be sup-. 
posed to include the other changes given by Paul, as 
cases where strict uniformity was not to be expected ; 
and he pointed out that Brugmann gave a reason for 
this invariability (which Paul had not), viz., that the 
changes were sudden. It was then suggested that if 
regularity was not to be expected in assimilation of 
nonconsecutive sounds, on the ground that such as- 
similation was sudden, there might be no reason to 
expect it when the sounds were consecutive, because 
it might be plausibly maintained that such assimila- 
tions were also sudden. It is notorious that in Latin 
numerous variations from the ordinary law are found 
in these assimilations: 6.5. we find quondam for 
*quomdam with change of m to n, but quamde with 
none ; cena for cesna, but uerna for *uesna; collis 
for *colnis but uolnus, where 77 remains ; porrum for 
*porsuin but dorsum ; and many like ones: even if 
we allow that some such variations have been plausi- 
bly explained, yet many remain for which no explana- 
tion has ever been offered. The writer suggested that 
thoroughgoing adherents of the dogma of unvarying 
phonetic sequence might find comfort in this ex- 
planation of variations which in fact are found, viz. 
that when change was sudden, regularity was not to 
be expected. But he pointed out there was a pre- 
liminary point to be settled. The most distinguished 
phoneticians are not agreed whether there is such a 
thing as ‘sudden’ change. Sievers (Gvundziige, p. 
226, ed.%) holds that there is, and gives as an in- 
stance labialism in Greek, Umbrian and Oscan. 
Sweet on the other hand seems at least (1.2.8.7 § 
42) to deny it. With the view of testing this point, 
and so furnishing a basis for the view described 


Cambridge 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


above, the writer gave a full list of the different kinds 
of sound-change and classified them tentatively as 
sudden or gradual. Upon this classification he in- 
vited discussion ; and a long discussion followed. 


Transactions of the American Philological 
Association for 1888. Vol. XIX. Boston, 
1889. 


THE Lex Curiata de Imperio, W. F. Allen. Against 
Mommsen’s view (Romisches Staatsrecht, i. 52) that 
this law was merely a formal recognition of a power 
already vested in a magistrate, the writer holds it to 
have been a substantial grant of power by a body 
different from that which elected (¢f. modern bicam- 
eral legislatures). An emergency prior to its enact- 
ment would be met in some practical way, as in the 
case of a provincial army deprived of its leader, or (as 
military power was vested in the consuls) through the 
formula videant consules, ete., though this special 
exercise of the imperiwm can scarcely have included 
holding the comitia centuriata. Mommsen cites as 
examples to prove his interpretation the consul 
Flaminius B.c. 217, the consuls of B.c. 49, and Appius 
Claudius, consul B.c. 54; but other explanations are 
offered. Moreover the importance of the law is 
strongly stated by Livy (v. 52, 15), by Cicero (leq. 
agr. 11. 11 and 12) and by Dio Cassius (39, 19).—On 
the Impersonal Verbs, Julius Goebel. A discussion 
of the various theories (1) that a subject is contained 
in the impersonals (Ueberweg, Lotze, Wundt, etc.), 
(2) that there is no subject (Herbart, Trendelenburg, 
Grimm, Benfey, etc.) and (3) that of Paul and others 
who hold an intermediate position, distinguishing 
between the logical and psychological subject. The 
writer supplements Sigwart’s discussion (Die Imper- 
sonalien ; eine logische Untersuchung) made from the 
standpoint of logic, by considerations drawn from 
linguistics.—On the Authorship of the Cynicus of 
Lucian, J. Bridge. An endeavour to show that 
Fritzsche is wrong in stating (II. 2, p. 235f.) that 
the same man could not have written the Fugitivi 
and the Cynicus, and to prove Lucian to be the author 
of the latter. The same man could inveigh against 
the Cynics of the time (to him, false Cynics) as in the 
Fugitivi, and defend Cynicism as in the Cynicus. Du 
Soul’s argument that the words κόμην ἔχειν are not 
Lucian’s since Cynics in his day were ἐν χρῷ κεκαρ- 
μένοι is unfounded ; for in his time the Cynics wore 
long hair and beards, ef. Tatian, Ad. Graecos c. 25 ; 
Dio Chrys. Or. 72; Lucian, Peregrinus 15. The 
only exception Cantharus (fugitivi 15) had in part 
adopted Stoic dress. The peculiar repetition of the 
first word in a clause may have been in imitation of 
Dio Chrysostom (cf. Or. 72 with the Cynicus).—The 
other papers are out of our department. 

In the Report of the Annual Session are summaries 
of the following papers: The Changes in the Roman 
Constitution proposed by Cicero (Legg. iii. 8, 6—5, 12), 
W. A Merrill.— The Leaacy of the Syrian Scribes (the 
President’s address), J. H. Hall, showing the import- 
ance ofa knowledge of Syriac literature in the study of 
the transmission of the Bible, the Greek and Latin 
classics, the Greek fathers, etc., especially in matters 
which the ordinary Hellenist little suspects.— The 
Cure Inscriptions from Epidaurus, J. R. Wheeler.— 
Goethe's Homeric Studies, G. M. Richardson.—Vola- 
pik and the law of Least Effort, ¥. A. March.— 
Theories of English Verse, J. C. Parsons-—A Con- 
sideration of the Method employed in Lighting the 
Vestal Fire, M. H. Morgan.—Peculiarities of Affix in 
Latinand Greek, Ο. 85. Halsey.—On the term ‘ Contami- 
nation’ used in reference to the Latin Comedy, F. D. 
Allen, Contaminare means not, as is usually held 
after Grauert, ‘to stick’ or ‘weld together,’ but ‘ to 


159 


spoil ;’ and in Terence, refers to the Greek originals 
and not to Latin plays. A Greek play from which 
a single scene was taken, was ‘spoiled’ for 
future use.—The Tripods of Hephaestus, Τὶ D. Sey- 
mour. τρίπους in Hom. Σ. 373 is not a ‘ mixing 
bowl’ or ‘kettle,’ but a table (¢f. Xen. An. VII. 3, 
21).—Date of the Episode of Cylon in Athenian History, 
J. H. Wright, setting it nearer 640 B.c. than 612 B.c., 
the usually accepted date.—4 new word, Arbitus, 
F. P. Brewer. —On the Identity of words and the mis- 
application of the tern. “ Cognate’ to words which are 
identical, L. S. Potwin.—The Locality of the Saltus 
Teutoburgiensis, W. F. Allen —Observations on the 
Fourth Eclogue of Vergil, W. 8. Scarborough. 


Harvard Studies 
Vol. i. 1890. 


1. J. B. Greenough, The Fauces of the Roman 
House. The word fauces means the passage leading 
from the front door to the atriwm. (1) Fauces natur- 
ally means entrance, as is shown by the careful exami- 
nation of the passages where itoccurs. (2) Vitruvius’s 
description can refer to nothing except the front 
passage, as this is always open while the others are 
always closed and so cannot form a part of the archi- 
tectural feature of the interior. (3) The actual houses 
show the front passage agreeing with his description, 
while the other is often wanting and, when present, 
never corresponds to Vitruvius’s description. The 
article is illustrated with a cut. 

2. M. H. Morgan, Commentatio de ignis eliciendi 
modis apud antiquos. In this long article are con- 
sidered the various means of kindling fire known to 
the ancients. In connection therewith are cited 
(with comment and explanation wherever necessary) 
all the passages in Greek and Roman authors, from 
Homer to Suidas, which throw light on the subject. 
As an introduction are considered the means of keep- 
ing fire alight in the house under the ashes, in the 
public buildings, and in campaigns by the πυρφόρος. 
There were four principal methods of kindling fire: 
(1) by the rubbing or boring of wood; (2) by the 
friction of two stones ; (3) by friction of stone and 
iron; (4) from the sun’s rays. Under (1) there is a 
full consideration of the πυρεῖον. It provided the 
commonest means of lighting fire in the classical 
period, although Nos. 2 and 3 were quicker. It was 
a very ancient Indo-European method, and the instru- 
ment developed into a wooden bow-drill, τρύπανον, 
which bored into the ἐσχάρα. The various woods 
used are mentioned and the different parts of the 
drill are fully considered. The troublesome and 
rare word στορεύς is treated at length. (2) The use 
of stones, especially pyrites and silex, is quite a com- 
mon way. In Soph. Phil. 35 the word πυρεῖα, as 
elsewhere often, refers to this method, and the com- 
mentators and L. and §. are wrong here ; cf. 295. 
(3) Stone and iron are rarely mentioned, only in 
Lucretius, Pliny Elder, and Isidore. Before consider- 
ing the fourth way the writer inquires into the differ- 
ent kinds of kindlings and tinder, also the use of 
matches, with special discussion of the words ἔσκα, 
Yoana, bona, on Which Codd., Edd., and Lexx. are 
very confusing. (4) Lighting from the sun. This 
entailed a consideration of what was known about 
reflexion, refraction, »nd plane, convex and concave 
mirrors ; also the history of the words for crystal and 
glass and the use of those materials. The different 
sorts of burning glasses and lenses from Aristoph. to 
Isidore are considered. Then follows a consideration 
of the story of Archimedes burning the Roman fleet. 
Finally the method of lighting the Vestal fire is dis- 
cussed. This was probably kindled every year, 
March 1. The writers have left us no information 


in Classical Philology. 


140 


about the method. Asa pure flame was wanted, it 
could not be got from any other fire, but in one of 
the four ways mentioned above. It was probably 
the same as that employed when the fire went out by 
accident, and this, Festus tells us, was by boring, and 
his statement is doubtless credible. On the other 
hand the method described in Plut. Vit. Nun. 9, is 
in itself incredible, because the lighting of fire from 
the sun’s rays was a comparatively modern invention. 
The passage may also be deemed an interpolation. 
A passage in Julian deserves no greater confidence. 
The article is illustrated with five cuts, representing 
πυρεῖα and Plutarch’s method of lighting fire from the 
sun. 

3. W. W. Goodwin, On the origin of the construction 
of ov μή with the subjunctive and the future indicative. 
The expression of denial οὐ μὴ γένηται or γενήσεται 
is generally explained as involving an ellipsis of the 
idea of fearing : thus οὐ δέος ἐστὶ μὴ x.7,A. The pro- 
hibition οὐ μὴ καταβήσει, do not come down, is gener- 
ally explained as interrogative will yow not not come 
down ? and the subjunctives which occur have com- 
monly been changed into futures. But not all the 
prohibitions eax be interrogative, nor can all the 
subjunctives be changed to futures without doing 
violence to the text. Nor are all cases of the 2 pers. 
of the subjunctive or future with od μὴ prohibitions. 
One theory should explain all cases. If οὐ in od μὴ 
γένηται is an independent negative, as it should be, 
the negative force of μή must be in abeyance. Note 
Plato’s favourite subjunctive as a form of cautious as- 
sertion, asin ph φαῦλον ἢ, which originally meant 
may it not prove bad (as I fear it may), but became 
softened into J suspect it may prove bad, aud then I 
think it wiil prove bad, or it will probably prove bad. 
The negative οὐ μὴ φαῦλον ἢ would be it will not prove 
to be bad. The independent subjunctive with μή occurs 
in Homer in expressions of apprehension combined with 
a desire to avert the object of fear. Between Homer 
and Plato there are only eight instances of this sub- 
junctive, which however show the transition from 
apprehension to cautious assertion. In Plato it also 
expresses honest apprehension. The dramatists use 
it in both senses and οὐ μὴ λάβωσί σε might mean J 
am not afraid that they will seize you, being the 
negative of 7 fear they may seize you, or they shall not 
seize you, the negative of I suspect they will seize you. 
The denial of an apprehension could easily change to 
the denial of a suspicion and then the need of an 
ellipsis is avoided. Attic Greek came naturally to 
use the future for the subjunctive. Then later the 
second person singular probably began to be used as a 
prohibition. 

4, W. W. Goodwin, On some disputed points in the 
construction of ἔδ ει, χρῆν etc. with the infinitive. 
With certain imperfects denoting obligation, pre- 
priety or possibility, ἔδει, χρῆν, etc. the infinitive is 
used, and the whole expression becomes a form of 
potential indicative, referring to past or present time, 
and generally implying the opposite of the infinitive. 
Thus ἔδει σε ἐλθεῖν, you ought to have gone (but you did 
not go). These imperfects may also be used with no 
potential force, thus ἔδει μένειν, he had to stay. The 
first of these is ‘ equivalent to the verb of the infini- 
tive in the potential indicative (with ἄν), qualified by 
an adverb or other expression denoting obligation, 
propriety, or possibility, which expression would 
stand in the relation of an unreal condition to the 
verb with ay.’ ‘It is generally laid down as an abso- 
lute rule that in this idiom the opposite of the infini- 
tive is always implied.’ But a large number of ex- 
amples show that when these potential expressions 
without ἄν stand alone they always imply the oppo- 
site of the infinitive, but when one of them is made 


Fence with the foil. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the apodosis of an unreal condition external to itself 
it may be so modified by the new condition as no 
longer to imply the opposite of the infinitive. In 
regard to the distinction between ἔδει &c. with the 
infinitive and ἔδει ἄν &c. with the infinitive the 
following rules hold good : “1, The form without ἄν is 
used when the infinitive is the principal word, on 
which the chief force of the expression falls, while the 
leading verb is an auxiliary which we can express by 
ought, might, could, or by an adverb, 2. On the 
other hand, when the chief force falls on the neces- 
sity, propriety, or possibility of the act, and not on 
the act itself, the leading verb has ἄν, like any other 
imperfect in a similar apodosis.’ Many illustrative 
examples are discussed. 

5. G. M. Lane, Notes on Quintilian. 1. Shall we 
say divom or divim in the genitive plural? (1) There 
is evidence of long 6 in coins before the first Punic 
War ; also of long ἢ in the Nuceria inscription, cer- 
tainly as late as 63 B.c. (2) There is evidence that the 
long 6 or long ἃ had disappeared about 100 A.D. 
Therefore, originally, divom, then divdim, diviim, 
detim.—2. In Quint. 1, 4, 27 correct lectwm to tectum, 
because /ectwm as a participle is not nominative and 
has short é.—3. In Quint. 1, 4, 16 read nutrix 
instead of notriz, because of MS. authority and 
because Quintilian himself indicates that it isa Greek 
word. Then write Culcidis for Culcides. 

6. J. B. Greenough, Some Latin Etymologies. 1. 
Reciprocus is a compound of trecus andt procus.—2. 
Improbus. Probus, is pro+ bus and was a mercantile 
word meaning A 1 or first-class. Iimprobus meant 
properly not first-class and became from its mercan- 
tile use a slang word of disapproval like horrid, 
mean, auful &e.—3. Rudimentum means foil-prac- 
tice, the practice of the raw recruit, hence the first 
essays in war. It is from a (real or supposed) verb 
rudio, which is from rudis foil and would mean to 
4, Desidero ought to be formed 
from an adjective tdesides (or-er), which would be 
compounded from de and sidus, Or it may come 
through the phrase de sidere. The original meaning’ 
of sidus was probably position, place, desidero would 
mean find or mark out of place. —5. Elementwm. 111π|8- 
trations are given supporting the old view from ed em 
en.—9. Praemium is prae-emium (emo to take), the 
special part of the spoil taken out beforehand.—7. 
Deliciae, delicatus. Analogy would lead to an adjec- 
tive delicus, de+licus, from which would come deli- 
ciae andf delico participle delicatus. in Varro deli- 
cus means a pig weaned by its mother. Dedico 
would naturally mean to pet, delicatus tender and 
deliciae delight.—8. Provincia is from tprovincus 
meaning ‘engaged in advancing conquest,’ and pro- 
vincia would be the state or condition of a person who 
is provincus. 

7. C. L. Smith, On egregiwm publicwm (Tae. 
Ann. 111. 70. 4). He would read egregiwm publice 
locum. 

8. A. A. Howard, On the use of the perfect infinitive 
in Latin with the force of the present. From a full 
discussion of passages the following results are 
obtained. ‘In early Latin the perfect infinitive with 
its proper significance was used to depend on the verb 
nolo or uolo in prohibitions ; but since the verb of 
wishing contained the idea of futurity, the whole 
clause acquired the force of a future perfect expres- 
sion. Later writers, and especially the poets, trans- 
ferred this use to negative clauses, not prohibitive, 
containing verbs of wishing, and secondly to clauses 
containing verbs like /aboro, amo, and timeo, “ Verba 
der Willensrichting.’ Since these verbs contain the 
idea of futurity, the present infinitive joined with 
them has the force of a future, the perfect infinitive 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


the force of a future-perfect. The tendency of the 
Latin writers to use the future-perfect for the future, 
through an overstrained desire to be exact, led 
them in these clauses to use the perfect infinitive 
instead of the present. The poets, and especially the 
elegiac poets, took advantage of the opportunity thus 
offered and transferred the use to other constructions 
which did not contain a verb of wishing. The 
reasons for this were two: first, the present infinitive 
of a large number of verbs, which they wished to use, 
on account of metrical difficulties could not be used 
in their verse, or could only be used under certain 
restrictions ; second, the perfect infinitive of these 
verbs were peculiarly adapted to the necessities of the 
last half of pentameter verse. The infinitive in this 
use seemed to have the force of an aorist infinitive in 
Greek, and in course of time came to be used by the 
poets even where the metre admitted the use of the 
present infinitive.’ 

9. H. N. Fowler, Plutarch’s περὶ εὐθυμίας. A de- 
tailed examination of passages shows that ‘only in a 
few instances has it been possible to find any indica- 
tion of the origin of Plutarch’s words and doctrines.’ 
It would appear, however, that for his introduction 
and his last chapter he adapted the corresponding 
parts of Democritus’s περὶ εὐθυμίας, that for his quota- 
tions and anecdotes collections of such matters were 
used and that even for his ethical doctrines similar 
sources were employed. 

10. G. M. Richardson, Vitruviana. This contains 
some anomalies of syntax and style, mainly vulgar 
and colloquial expressions, noted in Vitruvius; the 
limitative use of a, ab; descriptive use of cum with 
a noun having the force of an adjective or adverb; 
aliter having a distributive force, with afque as the 
connective ; copulative nec strengthened by a follow- 
ing negative ; oppido, followed by quam; the 118 
instances of the favourite word quemalmodum are 
given in groups ; sz (in sic) in apodosis as well as pro- 
tasis, a survival of parataxis ; wf with the subjunc- 
tive in wishes, exhortations, and commands, showing 
the origin of its use in final clauses, which were orig- 
inally paratactic ; the survival in indirect questions 
of the indicative which was originally used ; an un- 
common use of the infinitive as predicate after esse ; 
putare in the sense of ‘ intend.’ 

11. H. W. Haiey, The social and domestic position 
of women in Aristophanes, The object of the article 
is to collect the passages in Aristophanes bearing upon 
this subject and some of the inferences which may be 
drawn from them. It shows that the women’s estim- 
ate of themselves was depreciatory, and the men’s 
was low, from which we may infer that the popular 
estimate of the time was similar; that husbands 
usually exercised authority over their wives, that 
there was lack of confidence between husband and 
wife and also of conjugal affection. Unmarried 
women were closely contined to the gynaeconitis and 
seldom appeared in public except on religious oc- 
casions. Married women did not usually go out of 
their houses without some imperative reason for doing 
so, though they attended and took part in numerous 
festivals. There is considerable evidence that Athen- 
jan women sometimes attended the theatre, but it 
seems to be against the supposition that they were 
present when comedies were performed. There wasa 
considerable degree of freedom in connection with the 
ceremonies of marriage and burial and also in the 
case of those who were poor. Women of all classes 
associated freely with other women. The wife was 
mistress and stewardess of the house, though she did 
not generally cook, caring for the children, preparing 
the wool, spinning, weaving, working in flax, em- 
broidering. Most women had a knowledge of sing- 


141 


ing and dancing, and some instruction in τὰ γράμ- 
ματα, but they were ignorant of public life. 

Notes. F. D. Allen. ψαῦος in Aleman (Bergk, P.LZ.G. 
III? p. 77) amended to gatos (=gaos).—C./. L. I. 199 
proxuma faenisicet graver’s blunder for faenisicie, 
abl. of a *faenisicies (cf. facnisicia).—Schol. Ar. Ran. 
13, for φορτικευομένου read φορτακευομένου (cf. φόρταξ, 
porter): likewise in Suid. s.v. Avkas, read ἐφορτα- 
κεύετο. The verb φορτικεύομαι should disappear from 
our Lexx.—daprvw in Heracl. Tab. I. 105 refers to 
partnership.—In Ar. Ran. 180 ff. the order of verses 
should be 181, 182, 183, 180 (with ὠόπ, παραβαλοῦ 
assigned to Xanthias).—In Hdt. VI. 57 expunge 
τρίτην δὲ τῶν ἑωυτῶν. J.B. Greenough]. In Mart. 
vi. 78. 31, 32 quam is interrog. G. M. Liane]. ellum 
(three examples: Plaut. Bacch. 939, Ter. And. 855, 
Ad. 260) from em illum. 

General Index,—Index of Citations. 


Deutsche Litteraturzeitung. 1889. 

No. 36. Lippelt, Quaestiones biographicae. A 
careful discussion of the beginnings of Greek bio- 
graphical literature and of the authenticity of 
Xenophon’s Agesilaos.—Schwarz, De. M. Terentii 
Varronis apud sanctos patres vestigiis capita Il, A 
valuable contribution to a future collection of Varro’s 
fragments, although Schwarz’s arguments are by no 
means always conclusive. 

No. 37. Diimmler, Akademika : Beitrige zur Ge- 
schichte der Socratischen Schulen. A collection of 
essays to lead to ‘emancipation from Plato as histori- 
cal source.’ D.’s careful investigations lead to many 
valuable results.—Krebs, Zur Rection der Casus in 
der spateren historischen Gracitét.-I1. Discusses the use 
of the accusative after verbs like ἀπογιγνώσκω, ete. 
The author sometimes overlooks the fact that certain 
constructions can be traced back to a considerably 
earlier period.—Bilfinger, Der biirgerliche Tag. 
Against Ideler’s view, which, as B. shows, is based 
only on oman authorities, the author endeavours to 
prove that the Greek day began with the dawn, 
while the Roman day began officially at midnight.— 
Ehrenberg, Die Inselgruppe von Milos. A good 
geological and geographical description. 

No. 38. Plessis, Traité de Métrique grecque et latine. 
Sets forth in a short and clear manner the more common 
Latin and Greek metres, and will doubtless gain many 
friends as a convenient introduction.—Sexti Amarcit 
Galli Piosistrati Sermonum libb. IV. e cod. Dresdensi 
A 167% nune primum ed. Manitius. The edition of 
the sermones of this learned man, who probably 
lived at the time of Henry III. in Speier is careful 
and reliable ; its defects are printed out by Traube 
Zeitschr. 7. deutsches Alt. xxxili, Anz. p. 195—202. 

No. 39. Aug. Marx, Griechische Mérchen von 
dankbaren Thieren und Verwandtes. A good con- 
tribution to comparative folk-lore.—R. Sabbadini, 
Studi critict sulla Exeide. An interesting and sug- 
gestive book, although its positive results are but 
few. 

No. 40. Joh. Schmidt, Die Pluralbildungen der 
indogermanischen Neutra. Like all works of Schmidt, 
a most excellent and thorough investigation, full of 
interesting results.—Teulffel, Studien wnd Character- 
istiken zur griechischen und rémischen Litteratwr- 
geschichte. 2ed. The new edition, by the author’s 
son, contains the changes which T. had made in his 
own copy. ‘ Horatiana,’ two reprints (of ‘ Aeschylus 
Promethie und Orestie,’ 1861, and of ‘ Kritisch- 
Exegetisches,’ 1878), and an ‘ Introduction to Cic. or. 
pro Quinct.’ are added.—Schmidt, Abhandlungen zur 
alten Geschichte. A collection of Schmidt’s disserta- 
tions and essays on ancient history, heretofore scat- 
tered in magazines and therefore hard to obtain. 


149 


No. 41. Conradi Hirsaugensis Dialogus swper 
auctores sive Didascalon, ed. Schepps. Good edition 
of this literary history, valuable through the infor- 
mation which it gives about classical studies in the 
middle ages.—Dinarchi orationes adiectis Demadis 
fragmentis, ed. Blass, ed. 2. The critical apparatus 
is simplified by omitting the valueless readings of 
B, L, Z, M; the readings of A and N are added. 
The text deviates in more thana hundred places from 
that of ed. 1.—M. Terenti Varronis rerwm rustic- 
arum libri 111., ed. Keil. This text edition is a sort 
of supplement to K.’s larger ed. of Varro’s d. 7. 7., 
the first volume of which is a reconstruction of the 
archetype, while the present ed. gives a critically 
emended text with succinct apparatus.—D. Schoeffer, 
De Deli insulae rebus. A valuable treatise, chiefly 
based on inscriptions published in the Bull. de Corresp. 
Frellén. 

No. 42. Anonymus adversus aleatores und die 
Briefe an Cyprian, Lucian, Celerinus, &c.  Kritisch 
verbessert, erlautert und...tibersetzt v. Miodoiski. The 
text is decidedly improved, three MSS. (besides 
the Paris) having been collated. According to M. 
(against Harnack) the author of the book lived in 
the second half of the third century, and took his 
knowledge of the Bible and style chiefly from Cyp- 
rian.— Aeschylos Orestie mit erklérenden Anmerk. v. 
Weeklein. Exceedingly valuable, showing many im- 
provements on Wecklein’s critical edition of 1885.— 
Kauffmann, De Hygint memoria scholiis in Ciccronis 
Aratum Harleyanis servata, &e. (Breslau. Abh. IIT. 
4). The first part contains a good classification of 
MSS.; part second, a painstaking edition of the 
text. 

No. 43. Hecht, Die griechische Bedeutungslehre. 
An unsatisfactory appeal to philologists to pay more 
attention to Greek semasiology.—Kronemberg, Minw- 
ciana sive annotationes eriticae in Minucit Felicis 
Octavium. Show great familiarity with F.’s style. 
K. frequently defends successfully the MSS. readings. 
In his own conjectures he is circumspect and careful. 
—Ohnesorge, Die rémische Provinzliste von 297. I. 
Endeavours to show (as it seems, successfully) that 
the list goes back to Diocletian, and has very few 
later additions. O. repeats Mommsen’s, Noldeke’s, 
and Czawalina’s proofs, which he strengthens in some 
points. The second—more important part—will 
contain the proof that 297 is the year of Diocletian’s 
reform of the provinces.—Pomtow, Beitrdge zur To- 
pographie von Delphi. Gives some new details, but 
the author might have better waited until the exca- 
vations have thrown light on many obscure points. 

No. 44. N. Fornelli, La Pedagogia ὁ U Insegna- 
mento ckassico. One of the best modern books on the 
subject. — Hermann’s Lehrbuch der griechischen 
Antiquitéten. Staatsalterthiimer. 1 Abt. The 
editor’s care and scholarship deserve warm recog- 
nition, but the inconveniences which lie in the 
nature of the re-editing of such a book are strongly 
felt. — Henry Nettleship, Contributions to Latin 
Lexicography. These fragments of a Latin dictionary, 
which the author from want of aid was unable to 
finish, contain many interesting observations and 
some new glosses. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


No. 45. G. Cichorius, Rom und Mytilene. Contains 
three of the most interesting inscriptions discovered 
by C., which throw much light on the relations between 
Rome and Mytilene in the Augustan age, with C.’s 
ingenious conjectures based on them.—Hruza, Ueber 
das lege agere pro tutela, WH. proves convincingly 
that (lege) agere pro tutela is not the representation 
of a pupillus by the tutor, but is essentially identical 
with the postulatio suspecti tutoris, although for the 
latter there are no cogent proofs. 

No. 46. Pappenheim, Der angebliche Heraklitis- 
mus des Skeptikers Ainesidemos. An unsuccessful 
attempt to prove that Sextus, where he attributes 
Heraclitean doctrines to Ainesidemos, refers to a con- 
temporary school of philosophers, who used Ai.’s 
name in order to commend their doctrines. —Juvenalis 
saturae erkl. v. Weidner, 2nd. ed. Many errors of 
ed. I. are corrected, but their place is taken by new 
ones. —Gylling, De argumenti dispositione in satt. 
IX.-XVI. Juvenalis. Contains nothing that is new. 
—Dirr, Das Leben Juvenals. Attempts unsuccess- 
fully a reconstruction of the original Vita.—Rudolf 
Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the light of recent dis- 
coveries. Deserves warm commendation. 

No. 47. Arnaldo Foresti, saggi sulle fonti della 
epopea Greca. Is rather a physical mythology dis- 
solving everything into fog, sun, and some other 
natural phenomena. Full of the most fanciful etymolo- 
gies.—P. Nigidii Figuli operum reliquiae coll. em. 
en. Swoboda. A good collection of N.’s fragments 
with critical apparatus. In the appended ‘quaes- 
tiones Nig.’ Sw. discusses N.’s commentarii gram., 
his books de dis, de augur., de extis, de somnis, and 
his astronomical writings. 

No. 48. Reichert, Ueber den zweiten Theil der 
Odyssee. A valuable investigation. ‘The writer of 
υ 184 sqq. made use of the Telemachy and x, w. He 
is the redactor of and responsible for the second half 
of the Odyssey.’ R.’s treatment of x, y, and ¢ is 
also very noteworthy.—Andreae Cricii Carmina ed. 
Morawski. Very careful edition of C.’s (1477—1537) 
poems.—Beitriige zur Geschichte des Humanismus in 
Polen (Sb. Vienna Ac.). Is based on MS. letters, etc., 
and gives much new information. 

No. 49. Franz, Mythologische Studien II. Dis- 
cusses the ver sacrum and the sacrifice of kings. In 
his attempt to reconstruct old customs from myths, 
etc., F. goes frequently too far.—Demosthenis orationes 
e rec. Dindorfii cur. Blass. ed. IV. vols. IH. and 111. 
As in vol. I., the theory of responsion seems to play 
too prominent a part in B.’s textual criticism. Kaz” 
᾿Αριστογείτονος a’ and πρὸς Ζηνόθεμιν are considered 
genuine.—Bellum Alexandrinum erkl. v. Schneider. 
An excellent edition. Serves at the same time asa 
critical ed., giving the most important MSS. readings. 
The preface contains a refutation of Nipperdey’s view, 
that Hirtius was the author of the B. Al.—List, Alt- 
arisches jus gentium. The results can be regarded as 
fundamental. L. is in strict opposition to Gump- 
lowicz’s social theories and lays perhaps too much 
stress on the plant-like growth of institutions and 
social bodies. 


LIST OF NEW BOOKS. 
ENGLISH BOOKS. 


Demosthenes’ Ovations against Philip, with Introduc- 
tion and Notes by E. Abbott and P. E. Matheson. 
Part I]. 4s. θά. 


Goodwin (W. W.) 
of the Greek Verb, re-written and enlarged. 
pp. 492. Macmillan & Co. 14s. 


Syntax of the Moods and Tenses 
8vo. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Henry (Victor) A Short Comparative Grammar of 
Greek and Latin for Schools and Colleges, trans- 
lated from the second French edition by R. T. 
Elliott. With an Introductory Note by Henry 
Nettleship. Cr. 8vo. pp. xxx, 330. Sonnenschein 
& Co. 7s. 6d. 

Herodotus, The History of. Translated into English 


by G. C. Macaulay. 2 vols., post 8vo. pp. 780. 
Macmillan & Co. 18s. 
Livy. Book IV. Edited by H. M. Stephenson. 


12mo. Pitt Press. 2s. 6d. 

—— Legends from Ancient Rome. Adapted and 
edited, with Notes, Exercises, and Vocabularies, 
by Herbert Wilkinson. 18mo. pp. 106. Mac- 
millan & Co. 1s. 6d. 

Moulton (R. G.) The Ancient Classical Drama: a 
Study in Literary Evolution, intended for readers 
in English and in the original. Cr. 8vo. pp. 476. 
Clarendon Press. 8s. 6d. 


143 


Oman (C. W. C.) A history of Greece from the 
Earliest Times to the Macedonian Conquest. With 
Maps and Plans. pp. x, 535. Cr. 8vo. Rivingtons. 
4s. 6d. 

Simcoz (W. H.) The Language of the New Testa- 
ment (the Theological Education Series). 12mo. 
yp. 226. Hodder & Stoughton. 2s. 6d. 

Stedman (A. M. M.) Greek Vocabularies for Repe- 
tition, arranged according to subjects. 12mo. 
pp. 70. Methuen. 1s. 6d. 

Stone (E. D.) Selections from the Greek Tragedians. 


12mo. pp. 202. Rivingtons. 3s. 6d. 
Virgil. Aeneid, Book IV.: a translation by A. A. 
Irwin Nesbett. Cr. 8vo. Sewed. Clive. 1s. 


Xenophon, Works. Translated by H. G. Dakyns. 
(4 vols.) Vol. I, Post 8vo. pp. 514. Macmillan 
& Co. 105, 6d, 


FOREIGN 


Aeschylus. WOrestie. Traduction d’Alexis Pierron, 
avec une préface par J. Lemaitre. Dessins de 
Rochegrosse. 12mo. xx, 232 pp. Paris, Jouaust. 
20 fres. 

Barta (F.) Ueber die auf die Dichtkunst beziiglichen 
Ausdriicke bei den romischen Dichtern. I. ‘dich- 
ten’ und ‘Dichter.’ Programm. 8vo. 28 pp. 
Linz. 

Boutkowski-Glinka (A.) Petit Mionnet de Poche, ou 
Répertoire pratique ἃ Usage des Numismatistes en 
Voyage et Collectionneurs des Monnaies grecques, 
avec Indication de leurs prix actuels et de leur 


degré de rareté. 2 vols. 12mo. 418 pp. Berlin, 
Kohler. Mk. 18. 

Bidder (H.) De Strabonis studiis Homericis capita 
selecta, Dissertatio inauguralis. 8vo. 56 pp. 


Gedani. Mk. 1.50. 

Rivista di Filologia e Vistruzione classica. Anno 18°. 
Fase. 4-6. 8vo. 176 pp. Torino, Loescher. Per 
annum, 121. 50. 

Bouton (V.) Trois Lettres écrites en Octobre 1889 ἃ 
M. le Comte de Werlé sur le Palatium de la Mon- 
tagne de Rheims. Les Voies romaines qui y con- 
duisoient. 4to. Paris, Bouton. 50 fres. 

Caesar. De bello Gallico, illustrato da F. Romorino. 
2° edizione rifatta. 8vo. 409 pp. Map. Torino, 
Loescher. 31. 50. 

Delbriick (H.) Die Strategie des Perikles, erliutert 


durch die Strategie Friedrichs des Grossen. Mit 
einer Anhang iiber Thucydides und Kleon. 8vo. 
vii, 228 pp. Berlin, G. Reimer. 3 Mk. 

Diels (H.) Sibyllinische Blatter. 8vo. 158 pp. 


Berlin, G. Reimer. Mk. 2.80. 
Di Giovanni (N.) La Topografia antica di Palermo. 


S8vo. Palermo, Clausen. 35 lire. 
Fehrnborg (O. J.) De verbis latinis in wo divisas 
desinentibus. Diss. S8vo. 68 pp. Upsala. 


Friedlander (.) Darstellungen aus der Sittenge- 
schichte Roms in der Zeit von August bis zum 
Ausgang der Antonine. 6t¢ neu bearbeitete und 
vermehrte Auflage. 3. Theil. 8vo. xvi, 798 pp. 
Leipzig, Hirzel. Mk. 14. 

Fritze (K.) De Juli Frontini strategematon libro IV. 
Dissertatio inauguralis. S8vo. 51 pp. Halle, 1888. 
Mk, 1.20. 

Fiihrer (G.) De particula ὡς eum participiis et prae- 


positionibus junctae usu Thucydideo. Diss. S8vo. 
38 pp. Miinster. 
Geffcken (J.) De Stephano Byzantio. Commentatio 


Hermanno Sauppio diem natalem octogesimum 


BOOKS. 


agenti a sodalitio philologorum Gottingensium 
oblata. S8vo, 158 pp. Gottingen, Dieterich. 
Mk. 2. 

Guenther (P.) De ea, quae inter Timaeum et Lyco- 
phronem intercedit, ratione. Diss. 8vo. 74 pp. 
Lipsiae. 

Handbuch der klassischen Altertums- Wissenschaft 
herausgegeben von J. Miiller. Band II. 208 vollig 
umgearbeite Auflage ; [griechische und lateinische 


Sprachwissenschaft]. 2. Halfte. ὅνο. Miinchen, 
Beck. Mk. 8.50. 
Contents : Lateinische Grammatik bearbeitet 


von Stolz und Schmalz. pp. 400-584.—Lexiko- 
eraphie der griechischen und lateinischen Sprache 
von Autenrieth und Heerdegen. pp. 585-635.— 
Rhetorik der Griechen und Romer neubearbeitet 
von Volkmann. pp 637~676.—Metrik der Griech- 
en und Romer von Gleditsch. pp. 677-870.— 
Indices xx and pp. 871-942. 

Hart (G.) Uvsprung und Verbreitung der Pyramus 
und Thisbe-Sage.. Dissertation. 8vo. 57 pp. 
Passau. 1889. Mk. 1.60. 

Hermes. Zeitschrift fir Classische Philologie heraus- 
gegeben von G. Kaibel und C. Robert. Band 
XXV. (in 4 parts). 8vo. (Heft 1, 160 pp.) 
Berlin, Weidmann. Mk. 14. 

Herodot’s Perserkriege. Griechischer Text mit er- 
klirenden Anmerkungen. Fiir den Schulgebrauch 
herausgegeben von V. Hintner. Theil 2. An- 
merkungen. 2* verbesserte Auflage. 8vo. ili, 74 
pp- Map. Wien, Holder. Mk. 1.20. 

Hochart (P.) De V’Authenticité des Annales et des 
Histoires de Tacite. Svo. Paris, Thorin. §8 fr. 
Horling (W.) Sammlung lateinischer Satze. Kin 

Beitrag zur Einiibung der grammaticalischen Re- 


geln. Heft 1: Sitze zu den Regeln tiber den 
Konjunktiv. 8vo. 94 pp. Paderborn, Junfer- 
mann. Mk. 1. 

Hoerschelmann (W.) Catull 68. 8vo. 24 pp. 
Dorpat. 50 pfg. 

Harzmann (F.) Quaestiones scaenicae. Diss. 8vo. 
59 pp. Marburg. 


Isocrates. Orazione per la pace commentata da C. 
Tincani. 8vo. 199 pp. Torino, Loescher. 2 1. 50. 
Judeich (W.) Persien und Aegypten im LV. Jahr- 

hundert v. Christo. 8vo. 46 pp. Marburg. 
Koch (W.) Paris vor Helena in der antiken Kunst. 
Ein typengeschichtlicher Versuch. Diss. ὅνο. 
72 pp. Marburg. 
Kovroyovns, Σπυρίδων, Διορθώτικα εἰς τὰ ἔθνικα, 


144 


Στεφανοῦ τοῦ Βυζαντίου ἐν οἷς ἀκριβὴς περὶ τοῦ Σιμίας 
λόγος. Ἑλληνικὸν ὀνομάστικον περιλαμβάνον τὸ 
πρῶτον ἐξ ἐπιγραφῶν γνωριζόμενα ὀνόματα. Ἕκατον- 
τὰς ά. 8vo. 97 pp. Erlangen. 6 Mk. 

Larsen (S. C.) Studia critica in Plutarchi moralia, 


Dissertatio inauguralis, 8vo. 152 pp. Kopen- 
hagen, 1889. Mk. 3. 

Lejay (P.) Inscriptions antiques de la Céte-d’Or. 
8vo. Paris, Bouillon. 9 fr. 


Lucretius. De naturarerum. Livre 1. Traduction 
par H. Villard. 12mo. 23 pp. Paris, Jouaust. 
Lyly (J. A.) Plootinos sielun substantsia alisundesta. 


Diss. 8vo. 216 pp. Helsingfors. 
Meingast (A.) Lateinische Stiliibungen. Programm. 
8vo. 12 pp. Klagenfurt. 


Mnemosyne. Bibliotheca philologica Batava, colle- 
gerunt Naber, Leeuwen et Valeton. Nova Series. 
Vol. XVIII. (in 4 parts). 4 partes. 8vo. (Heft 1, 
112 pp.) Leiden. Mk. 9. 

Miller (F.) Philipp 11. und die Athener in ihren 


wechselseitigen Beziehungen zu einander. I. Pro- 
gramm. 8vo. 21 pp. Olmiitz. 

Miller (W.) Eine Terrakotta der Gottinger Samm- 
lung. 8vo. 12 pp. Plate. Gottingen, Dieterich. 
Mk. 1.20. 


Museum, Rheinisches, fiir Philologie herausgegeben 
von O. Ribbeck und F. Biicheler. Neue Folge. 
Band 45 (in 4 parts). 8vo. (Heft 1, 160 pp.). 
Frankfurt a/M., Sauerlinder. Mk. 14. 

Niz (L. M. L.) Das 5. Buch der Cornica des Apol- 
lonius von Perga in der arabischen Uebersetzung 
des Thabit Ibn Corrah. Herausgegeben, ins 
Deutsche iibertragen und mit eine EKinleitung ver- 
sehen. 8vo. 48 pp. Leipzig, Hiersemann. Mk. 2. 

Otto (P.) Quaestiones Strabonianae. Diss. 8vo. 
60 pp. Leipzig. 

Pascal (C.) Quaestiones Vergilianae ad eclogam IV. 
spectantes. 8vo. 26 pp. Turin. 

Peters (J.) De C. Valerii Flacci vita et carmine. 
Diss. 8vo. 86 pp. Konigsberg. 

Pichlmayr (Frz.) T. Flavius Domitianus. Ein Bei- 
trag zur romischen Kaisergeschichte. 8vo. 100 pp. 
Amberg, 1889. Mk. 1.80. 

Plew (J.) Quellenuntersucbungen zur Geschichte des 
Kaisers Hadrian, nebst einem Anhang iiber das 
Monumentum Ancyranum und die kaiserlichen Au- 
tobiographien. 8vo. iii, 121 pp. Strassburg, 
Triibner. Mk. 5. 

Plutarchi Moralia, recognovit G. N. Bernadakis. 


Vol. If. 12mo. xxii, 557 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 
Mk. 3. . 

Poiret (J.) Horace. Etude psychologique et lit- 
téraire. 12mo. Paris, E. Thorin. 3 fr. 50. 


Pollionis (C. Asini) De bello africo commentarius. 
Recensuerunt, emandaverunt, adnotatione illustra- 
verunt E. Wolfflin et A. Miodonski. Adjecta est 
tabula photolithographica codicis Ashburnham- 
ensis. 8vo. xi, 264 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 
Mk. 6.80. 

Posnansky (H.) Nemesis und Adrasteia. Eine mytho- 
logisch-archiiologische Abhandlung. ix, 184 pp. 
Plate. 8vo. Breslau, Koebner. Mk. 7. 

(Breslauer philologische Abhandlungen Band V. 
Heft 2.) 
Pusch (H.) Quaestiones Zenodoteae. (I.) Diss. 8vo. 


30 pp. Halle. 

Reichardt (C.) Landeskunde von Skythien nach 
Herodot. Diss. 8vo. 134 pp. and 2 Maps. 
Halle. 


Rodemeyer (K. Τὸ Das Praesens historicum bei 
Herodot und Thukydides. Diss. 8vo. 71 pp. 
Basel. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


Rohde (K.) Psyche. Seelencult und Unsterblich- 
keitsglaube der Griechen. Hialfte I. 8vo. 294 pp. 
Freiburg, Mohr. Mk. 7. 

Rundischau, neue philologische. Herausgegeben von 
C. Wagener und E. Ludwig. Jahrgang, 1890. (24 
Nos.) 8vo. Gotha, F. A. Perthes. Mk. 12. 

Schenck (L.) De Telesphoro deo. Dissertatio. 8vo. 
55 pp. Gottingen. Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. 
Mk. 1.40. 

Schmidt (O.) Der von den Romern (43-52) in Bri- 
tannien gefiihrte Krieg. Programm. 8vo. 14 pp. 
Wien. 

Schuchhardt (C.)  Schliemann’s Ausgrabungen in 
Troja, Tiryns, Mykena, Orchomenos, Ithaka, im 
Lichte der heutigen Wissenschaft dargestellt. 
2 Portraits, 6 Maps, and 290 Illustrations. 8vo. 
xii, 371 pp. Leipzig, Brockhaus. Mk. 8. 

Schiitz (H.) Sophokleische Studien. Kritisch-exe- 
getische Untersuchungen der schwierigeren Stellen 
in den Tragédien des Sophokles. 8vo. viii, 450 pp. 
Potsdam, Stein. 6 Mk. 

Strabonis ἱστωρικῶν ὑπομνημάτων fragmenta collegit 
et enarravit adjectis quaestionibus Strabonianis 
Paulus Otto. 8vo. 350 pp. Leipzig, Hirzel. 
8 Mk. 

[Leipziger Studien zur classischen Philologie 
Band XI. Supplement Heft. ] 

Studien, Leipziger, zur classischen Philologie. Her- 
ausgegeben von Ὁ. Ribbeck, H. Lipsius, C. Wachs- 
muth. Band XII. Heft 1. 8vo. 281 pp. Leipzig, 
Hirzel. Mk. 6. 

Susemihl (Fr.) De Theoginae Orphicae forma anti- 
quissima dissertatio. 8vo. xxi, pp. Greifswald. 
Mk. 1.60. 

Teuffel (W.S.) Geschichte der romischen Literatur. 
Neu bearbeitet von L. Schwabe. δ Auflage. 
Band I. ὅνο. xiv, 648 pp. Leipzig, Teubner. 
Mk. 7.20. 

Thiissing (J.) De temporum et modorum in enunti- 
atis pendentibus apud C. Plinium Secundum usa. 
Fasciculus 1. 8vo. 67 pp. Prag, Dominicus. 
Mk. 1.20. : 

[Prager philologische Studien. Heft 2.1 

Toller (O.) De spectaculis, cenis, distributionibus 

in municipils romanis occidentis imperatorum aetate 


exhibitis. Dissertatio inauguralis. 8vo. 102 pp. 
Altenburg. Mk. 2. 
Treuenfeld. Der Zug der 10,000 Griechen bis zur 


Ankunft am schwarzen Meer bei Trapezunt, darge- 
stellt nach Xenophon’s Anabasis. 8vo. v, 146 pp. 
3 Maps. Naumburg, Schirmer. Mk. 2. 

Wegener (E.) De Aeschyli et Sophoclis fabulis ad 
Herculem spectantibus. Diss. 8vo. 38 pp. Halle. 
Welske (A.) Anmerkungen zur griechischen Syntax 

mit Anschluss an Εἰ. Koch's griechische Schulgram- 


matik. [Extract: Jahrbiicher fiir Philologie und 
Padagogik.] 8vo. 24 pp. Halle, Buchhandlung 
des Waisenhauses. 50 pfg. 


Wentzel (G.) Ἐπικλήσεις Θεῶν sive de deorum cog- 
nominibus per Grammaticorum Graecorum scripta 
dispersis. Diss. 8vo. 156 pp. Gottingen. 

Wochenschrift, Berliner philologische, herausgegeben 
von C. Belger und O. Seyffert. Jahrgang 19 (52 
Nos.). 1890. 4to. Berlin, Calvary & Co. Quar- 
terly. Mk. 6. 

fiir klassische Philologie, herausgegeben von 
G. Andresen, F. Harder und H. Heller. Jahrgang 
vii, 1890 (52 Nos.). 4to. Berlin, Gartner. Quar- 
terly. Mk. 6. 

Xenophon’s Anabasis. 
ausgegeben von A. Weidner. 
Leipzig, Freytag. Mk. 1.50. 


Fiir den Schulgebrauch her- 
12mo. xx, 266 pp. 


The Classical Review 


APRIL 1890. 


THE GAME OF ‘HARPASTUM’ OR ‘ PHENINDA.’ 


So many learned writers, especially in 
Germany, have treated of Greek and Roman 
games that some apology may be needed for 
opening the subject at all : but authoritative 
as is their interpretation of most things, 
the games at ball are precisely what we 
have still left for doubt and conjecture. 
Krause, Bec de Fouquiéres, Marquardt, and 
even Grasberger in his admirable Lrzvehung 
und Unterricht, while they supply a store- 
house of references, do not seem to have con- 
sidered enough the practical question—what 
a player would be likely or able to do with 
a ball, or what manner of rules could or 
could not make a match between two sets of 
players. Greek and Roman games are 
loosely spoken of as somewhat like tennis, 
or are even compared to golf!, although 
there is no trace of any implement such asa 
bat or racquet being used for any game bya 
Greek or Roman until a late period—none, 
as far as I know, earlier than the game 
identical with polo which Cinnamus (vi. 5) 
describes as played at Byzantium in the 
reign of Manuel Comnenus. Strangest per- 
haps asa failure to see essential differences in 
games is the suggestion of Grasberger (op. 
cit. p. 95) that harpastum may perhaps be the 
same as this Byzantine game, though the 
one is played on horseback with a long 
curved stick, the other on foot with nothing 
but the hand to propel the ball. 

It will probably never be possible to lay 
down with certainty all the rules of any 
Greek and Roman game at ball, except those 
of οὐρανία, which is simply a game of ‘ catch’ ; 

Ὁ Such I conceive to be the meaning of Bec de Fou- 
quitre’s statement (Jeux des Anciens, p. 203) that 
the game of ἐπίσκυρος is ‘still played in Scotland.’ 

NO. XXXII. VOL. IV. 


and of all the games harpastum is on the 
whole the hardest to determine. But a com- 
parison of ancient authorities will limit con- 
siderably the field of discussion and will, I 
believe, exclude many suggestions which have 
been made, 

The passages which form our authorities 
for this game are Martial, iv. 19, vii. 32, 
xiv. 48 ; Athenaeus, i. p. 15 ; Eustathius on 
Od. 1x. 376; Pollux,.1.'32:; Sidenius, v. 17, 
and especially the treatise of Galen περὶ τῆς 
σμικρᾶς σφαίρας. On this last an elaborate 
treatise has been written by Johann Mar- 
quardt (Gustroviae 1879), whose authority 
is accepted and quoted by Joachim Mar- 
quardt in his Privatleben der Rimer. But I 
cannot help thinking that Johann Mar- 
quardt has started altogether on a wrong 
path from supposing that Galen speaks of 
three different games, and then trying by a 
forced interpretation to fit im ἐπίσκυρος, 
φενίνδα and ἁρπαστὸν as the three in ques- 
tion. This idea may have originated in the 
use of the plural by Galen (pp. 899, 900), τὰ 
διὰ τῆς σμικρᾶς σφαίρας γυμνάσια, coupled with 
the mention of ditterent degrees of exertion 
suitable for different constitutions. In 
reality however the wording of the treatise, 
as well as its most natural interpretation, 
should lead us to conclude that one game is 
described. Its title is περὶ τοῦ διὰ τῆς σμικ- 
pas σφαίρας γυμνασίου, and the plurals are 
used in speaking of the different effects on 
various parts of the body caused by different 
phases of the game: eg. on page 902 he 
says that he knows no other game so well 
calculated to exercise all the limbs, either 
severely or moderately as is requisite, τοῦτο 
δὲ μόνον τὸ διὰ τῆς σμικρᾶς σφαίρας ὀξύτατον ἐν 

L 


140 


μέρει καὶ βραδύτατον γενόμενον, σφοδρότατον 
καὶ πρᾳότατον ὡς ἂν αὐτός TE βουληθῇς καὶ τὸ 
σῶμα φαίνηται δεόμενον. Surely this passage 
alone would exclude Marquardt’s interpreta- 
tion of three different games suited for three 
different ages or strengths. Have we never 
heard in the modern game of football of a 
man playing ‘goals’ because accident or 
age has made him a less active runner than 
he once was?! Briefly summarised Galen’s 
argument in favour of the game is that it 
not only exercises all parts of the body and 
practises the eye, but also stimulates the 
mind by a spirit of emulation. Of this last 
he, as a physician, makes a great point, and 
his remarks are valuable for our question as 
showing that he is speaking of a real game 
to be won or lost, and not of medico-gym- 
nastics. He proceeds to prove that this 
game suits all ages and constitutions, be- 
cause each player can select that post or 
duty in it which best suits his capacity : and 
here again the forms of expression show that 
he is deseribing one particular game, and 
not three different games. The player may 
take ὅσον ἐν αὐτῷ σφοδρότατον, or he may 
choose the posts involving less exertion, 
οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτω πρᾷον, εἰ πράως αὐτῷ μεταχειρί 
ζοιο : he may for instance take up a position 
far from the centre, where he will have 
chiefly to exercise his arms in throwing, or 
he may have a great deal of running and 
few long throws: or again he may take 
that part which involves little rapid motion 
but a great deal of grappling and wrest- 
ling. 

It will be seen that I have taken the 
game which Galen calls that of the σμικρὰ 
σφαῖρα to be harpastum. This can, I think, 
be proved beyond a doubt. As the well- 
known games at ball in which several 
players are divided into two opposing sides 
(defined as games κατὰ πλήθη or sphaero- 
machiae) we gather only two from Eusta- 
thius, Pollux and Athenaeus, namely ἐπίσκυ- 
pos and ἁρπαστὸν or devivoa. Galen’s game 

11 have mentioned football as a familiar instance 
where players differing in activity and strength can 
find suitable places in one and the same game ; but it 
may be well to guard against the idea that football of 
any sort was played in ancient Greece and Rome. 
Johann Marquardt (among others) speaks of the ball 
being kicked in harpasiwm as well as thrown, and 
cites as his authority Bec de Fouquitres, who cer- 
tainly makes the statement but cites no authority at 
all. know of no passage in Greek or Latin litera- 
ture which gives ground for this idea, which seems to 
have arisen from the mention of jugglers, such as 
Ursus Togatus (Orelli 2591), who caught and tossed 
balls with their feet. Galen speaks of the exercise to 
the arms in throwing: had kicking been allowed, he 


would have mentioned that as exercising the legs, but 
he assigns to them the exercise of running only. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


is certainly not ἐπίσκυρος, the rules of which 
are laid down by the first two writers with 
remarkable precision, and, as we can hardly 
suppose that the game which Galen selects 
as the most complete and interesting would 
be passed over by these writers, it is neces- 
sary to identify 1t with harpastum: and 
this Pollux does, when, speaking of devivéa, 
he says εἰκάζοιτο δ᾽ ἂν εἶναι ἣ διὰ τοῦ μικροῦ 
σφαιρίου ὃ ἐκ Tod ἁρπάζειν ὠνόμασται. It will 
be seen also that what little can be gathered 
from Martial about harpastum is in agree- 
ment with this view: the ball with which 
it was played must have been the smallest 
and hardest of the four balls mentioned in 
the Apophoreta, since the paganica (the ball 
stuffed with feathers) is said to come 
between the pila par excellence (i.e. the 
trigon) and the follis as regards size and 
hardness, and, as the follis was certainly the 
largest, 1t follows that the harpastum was 
the smallest. I have spoken above of the 
pheninda as merely a synonym of harpastum. 
It is difficult to understand how modern 
writers can venture to treat these two as 
separate games in face of the distinct state- 
ment of Athenaeus, ‘70 δὲ καλούμενον διὰ τῆς 
σφαίρας ἁρπαστὸν φαινίνδα ἐκαλεῖτο. As he 
adds that it was his favourite game, the 
flat contradiction of his statement in the 
19th century seems all the more presump- 
tuous ; and there is no conflict of authori- 
ties to justify it ; for no ancient writer men- 
tions them as distinct. Pollux alone in the 
passage cited above goes so far as to say 
that they might be ditferent, though he con- 
jectures that they are the same. His note 
of uncertainty might suggest that he was 
more of a student than an athlete, but it 
must be remembered also that the name 
pheninda was, as Athenaeus tells us, gene- 
rally superseded by the word harpastum, 
though it was still retained in some places, 
and is the only name appled to this game 
by Eustathius and Clement of Alexandria. 
The latter writer (Paed. 111. 10) in the words 
σφαίρᾳ τῇ μικρᾷ παιζόντων τὴν φενίνδα affords 
additional proof that pheninda and harpas- 
tum were synonyms, if the foregoing remarks 
upon Galen are correct : on the other hand, 
if it is admitted that pheninda = harpastum, 
the words of Clement will confirm the inter- 
pretation of Galen. As to the correct spell- 
ing of the word, devivda rather than φαινίνδα, 
there can be little doubt that Meineke 
(whom Marquardt follows) is right in 
Hermes, 111. p. 455. Its connection in the 
sense of misleading with φενακίζω (see Ltym. 
Magn. s.v. φεννίς and Phot. Lex.) will be 
understood from the description of the game. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


That there was absolutely no alteration or 
development in the rules of the game 
between the time of Antiphanes and that of 
Athenaeus—an intervalabout as long as from 
the battle of Bannockburn to the present 
day—is unlikely, but the main features of 
the game must have remained and justified 
the various names. The most characteristic 
feature was the player who intercepted 
(ἡρπαζε) the ball and who feigned a throw 
(ἐφενάκιζε). This player is ὃ μεταξὺ of Galen 
and the medicurrens of Sidonius, who is 
obviously describing the same game as Galen. 
To sum up the foregoing arguments: 
Athenaeus asserts that pheninda is the same 
as harpastum: Pollux thinks it is the game 
with the μικρὰ σφαῖρα, which = ἅρπαστόν : 
Clement of Alexandria says that it is played 
with μικρὰ σφαῖρα. Taking these together it 
appears clear that pheninda was the old 
name for what was afterwards generally 
called harpastum, and the older term still 
lingered in some places when Clement wrote ; 
and, further, that this game was so much 
identified with the μικρὰ σφαῖρα that the 
name of the ball expresses the game itself. 

Tt must be admitted that a reconstruction 
of the rules is in great measure guess-work, 
but it seems to me that the following 
account will explain and harmonize the 
fragmentary descriptions in Greek and Latin 
writers, and at the same time will not mili- 
tate against common sense or the usual 
habits of balls. The players were divided 
into two sides, and each side had a base line, 
for without this we cannot explain what 
Galen says about στρατηγία and positions 
won and lost. We must suppose then a 
large rectangular ground with base lines at 
each end, divided into two equal camps by a 
line in the middle, which the ‘trames’ of 
Sidonius must express.! So far the ground 
resembles that of the ἐπίσκυρος, but the 
resemblance seems to stop here. A special 
feature of the game was, as has been said, 
the ‘middle player,’ 6 μεταξὺ or medicurrens, 
who is probably described by ‘vagus’ in 
Martial vii. 22. One would indeed prefer 
to imagine two middle players, so that each 
side might have one, but the use of the sin- 
gular in the authorities both Latin and 
Greek seems to preclude this and to render 
necessary some such explanation as is here 
attempted. How the ‘innings’ of the medi- 
currens terminated is not stated, but it may 
be suggested that he gave up his place to 
one of his opponents, whenever a point was 


1 T strongly suspect that for ‘nee intercideret 
tramitem nec caveret’ we should read οὐ intercideret 
Χο, 


147 


scored against his own side. The main 
object must have been to throw the ball so 
that it should drop finally beyond the 
enemy’s base line, thereby scoring a point ; 
and we may suppose that it was started from 
one or other base line and thrown from one 
player to another, the opposite side thwart- 
ing whenever they got an opportunity, and 
throwing it back in the contrary direction. 
The duty of the medicurrens was to catch it 
as 10 went past (‘praetervolantem aut super- 
jectam,’ Sidou.), which would give him a 
better opportunity of throwing it over the 
enemy's line, or into some unguarded spot 
in their camp, where it might fall ‘dead’ 
and be started again, or of passing it on to 
one of his own side who was advantageously 
posted forward. Here would come in the 
manceuvres from which the names of the 
game arose: his intercepting the ball is ex- 
pressed by ἁρπαστόν, the feint of throwing in 
order to make his opponents rush ina wrong 
direction suggested the name d¢evivda. One 
among the essential points of difference 
between this game and some others (e.g. 
trigon) was that the ball might be taken at 
the first bound as well as at the volley and 
only dropped ‘dead’ when it fell a second 
time, whereas at trigon the stroke was com- 
plete as soon as the ball once touched the 
ground (Petron. 27). This accounts for the 
epithet pulverulenta (Mart. iv. 19), and the 
alternative name of the ball arenaria, since 
it was naturally more often on the ground : 
hence also the expression ‘ rapit velox in pul- 
vere’ (Mart. xiv. 48). 

The duties of the other players may be 
gathered from Galen and Sidonius. Some 
of them (and naturally those who were less 
active in running) stood near their own base 
line, the ‘stantum locus,’ and only made 
long throws towards the centre when they 
got hold of the ball: others played nearer 
the centre in what Sidonius calls the ‘area 
pilae praetervolantis et superjectae,’ and ran 
to whatever part of their camp the ball was or 
seemed to be approaching, or ran forward, 
so as to be ready to pass on the ball from 
the medicurrens towards the enemy’s base : 
in the event of the ball approaching their 
own base there would be a rush back to the 
rescue ; and this explains the words φυγή, 
καταστροφή, catastropha, which we find in 
Eustathius, Antiphanes and Sidonius. Lastly 
some of the forward players, presumably the 
strongest in muscle, were often engaged in 
grappling with the medicurrens or with one 
another in the endeavour to stop him from 
catching and throwing the ball, or to pre- 
vent his being stopped by others, as is 

L 2 


148 


described by Galen “ ὅταν συνιστάμενοι πρὸς 


ἀλλήλους καὶ ἀποκωλύοντες ὑφαρπάσαι τὸν 
μεταξύ. . Hence the use of all the wrestling 


terms, such as ἅμμα, ἀντίληψις, τραχηλισμός, 
which may suggest some phases of the 
‘Rugby game’: and this grappling by the 
neck explains the otherwise obscure descrip- 
tion of the harpastum-player in Martial 
‘grandia qui vano colla labore facit,’ and 
the line of Antiphanes ‘ οἴμοι κακόδαιμον τὸν 
τράχηλον ὡς exw.’ Such an exposition of the 
game will I think harmonize with the words 
of Galen, which seem to me out of all har- 
mony with the conceptions of recent writers 
on the subject. ‘ You can,’ he says in effect, 
‘ exercise a// your muscles, legs and arms and 
chest, in throwing, running and wrestling, 
and your eye at the same time in judging the 
ball [{.6. if you are the medicurrens], or you 
may take wrestling alone [as those who 
thwart him], or ranning without much 
throwing [as in the καταστροφή, and general- 
ly in ‘forward’ play], or throwing without 
much running [as those who play on the 
line, the ‘stantes’].’ We can I think also 
find here the explanation of the well-known 
lines of Antiphanes, cited by Athenaeus (i. 
p. 15) as descriptive of pheninda— 


σφαῖραν λαβὼν 

“ Ἀ ὃ ὃ \ 5, Ν δὴ 5, rE GP 
τῷ μὲν διδοὺς ἔχαιρε, TOV ὃ ἐφευγ᾽ apa, 

Ν δ᾽ > / \ τ 3 / ΄ 
τὸν δ᾽ ἐξέκρουσε, τὸν δ᾽ ἀνέστησεν πάλιν 
κλαγκταῖσι [αἱ. πλαγκταῖσι] φωναῖς. 
ἔξω, μακράν, παρ᾽ αὐτὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν κάτω 
ἄνω βραχεῖαν ἀπόδος, ἐγκαταστρέφου--- 


if we suppose the passage to describe part 
only of the game, the action namely of the 
medicurrens—having caught the ball he 
throws it (δίδωσι) to A, one of his own side, 
while he avoids B who tries to grapple with 
him, and misleads (ἐκκρούει) C by a feint of 
throwing it in some other direction, and 
then, as the game goes on, he shouts again 
to one of his own side to throw the ball, 
high, low, &c., as may be needed to dodge 
the opponent (παρ᾽ αὐτὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτόν), or 
lastly to run back (ἐγκαταστρέφεσθαι) to 
guard his own base. Or we may take the 
interpretation of the last two lines (which 
follow Meineke’s reading) to represent the 
shouts of those opposing the medictrrens 
and urging others to throw past him «ec. 
The reading πλαγκταῖσι (which however does 
not seem necessary) would imply a feint, like 
ἐξέκρουσε. 

The passage in Sidonius (17. v. 17) is not 
only the best description of the game after 
Galen, but also gives an amusing picture of 
what may still sometimes be seen, an 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


elderly player in difficulties. “ Hie vir illus- 
tris Philematius, ut est illud Mantuani poe- 
tae, “ Ausus et ipse manu juvenum tentare 
laborem,” sphaeristarum se turmalibus con- 
stanter immiscuit : perbene enim hoc fecerat, 
sed quum adhue essent anni minores.’—The 
end of it is that, having first stationed him- 
self ‘loco stantum’ (which I take to be the 
line of back players, described by Galen as 
only throwing ἐκ διαστήματος πολλοῦ, and 
not running), he is next whirled by the 
hurrying medicurrens into the middle area, 
stumbles over the centre line (marked per- 
haps, like the σκῦρος or λατύπη, with small 
stones), is knocked down by a backward 
rush of players (catastropha), picks himself 
up at last and retires heated and out of 
breath, which is bluntly expressed by 
‘suspiriosus extis calescentibus.’ He is 
more fortunate than the slave-boy in Dig. 
9, 2, 52, § 4, who was knocked down in 
much the same way, and broke his leg. 

As to the passages from Antyllus (ap. 
Oribas. i. p. 529) which complicate the ques- 
tion in Bee de Fouquiéres, Marquardt and 
others, it is to me perfectly clear that they 
have nothing to do with this game, or any 
other game properly so called; but describe 
a course of medico-gymnastical exercises 
wholly distinct from the contest between 
sides which Galen gives us : in some of these 
exercises the ball does not even leave the 
hand but acts as a sort of dumb-bell in 
extension motions. ; 

It may be well to say a word in conclusion 
about the argument at the end of Johann 
Marquardt’s excursus as to three games, 
drawn from the expressions ‘datatim, expul- 
sim, raptim ludere.’ It is, I think, a pri- 
mary cause of error in many writers (though 
Joachim Marquardt in the main takes these 
words rightly) that they have confused 
methods of playing with games. 1. Datatim 
ludere means simply to play by catching the 
ball; throwing the ball for a catch being 
dare, mittere or jactare, throwing it back 
after a catch reddere, remittere : 2. expulsim 
ludere on the contrary means to play by 
striking the ball with the hand without hold- 
ing it, the stroke used in our game of ‘fives’ ; 
and the words eapellere, expulsare, repercutere, 
ἀπόρραξις all apply to this stroke ; it could 
be used equally by those playing together in 
a game, or in solitary practice against a 
floor or wall, as in Varro (ap. Non. 104, 27) 
‘videbis in foro ante lanienas pueros pila 
expulsim ludere’ : 3. raptim ludere describes 
the play when the ball is intercepted by a 
third person as it flies between two others. 
These methods then are not games, but 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


strokes, which might be employed in various 
games. In trigon, for instance, the play 
might be either datatim or expulsim but not 


149 


raptim ; in harpastwm possibly all three, but 
usually datatim and raptim. 
G. E. Mar npin. 


ON THE 


SIGNIFICANCE OF SOME ECHOED PHRASES IN EURIPIDES’ 


HIPPOLYTUS. 


Tue Hippolytus opens with the speech of 
Aphrodite in which she reveals to the audi- 
ence her grudge against the son of Theseus, 
and her intended vengeance. He comes in 
with his followers singing the praises of 
Artemis: and the audience feels the irony of 
the situation when they know and he does 
not know what danger overhangs him. In 
the remonstrances addressed to him by his 
servant (107), τιμαῖσιν, ὦ παῖ, δαιμόνων χρῆσθαι 
χρεών--ἂ door of escape seems to open. But 
Hippolytus in his blindness rejects his 
opportunity, and this in striking words (113), 
τὴν σὴν δὲ Κύπριν πόλλ᾽ ἐγὼ χαίρειν λέγω. He 
has formulated his sin, he has consciously 
proclaimed that he adheres toit, and he leaves 
the stage. Without doubt those last words 
lingered in the mind of the audience, as the 
summing-up of Hippolytus’ offence, and the 
knell of his approaching doom. 

But Hippolytus is not the only sinner in 
the play nor the only object of divine 
vengeance. Before the drama ends, Theseus 
has played a part almost analogous to that 
of his son. 

Prima facie Theseus acts naturally in 
believing the charges against Hippolytus 
found in the hand of his dead wife. But 
when without further inquiry he invokes on 
his son a curse and banishes him from the 
Jand, his action is over-hasty and insolent. 
Again a way of escape is opened. In the 
words of Hippolytus (1051-1055) :— 


οὐδὲ μηνυτὴν χρόνον 
δέξει καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, ἀλλά μ᾽ ἐξελᾶς χθονός ; 


90) φΦ 3QX ΄ 50 Ν [2 
οὐδ᾽ ὅρκον οὐδὲ πίστιν οὐδὲ μαντέων 


φήμας ἐλέγξας, ἄκριτον ἐκβαλεῖς με γῆς ; 


The gods have not left us without light. 
Will you not use it? But as Hippolytus did 
before, so Theseus now snaps his fingers at 
the Divine power :— 


ἡ δέλτος ἧδε κλῆρον οὐ δεδεγμένη 
κατηγορεῖ σου πιστά: τοὺς δ᾽ ὑπὲρ κάρα 
φοιτῶντας ὄρνεις πόλλ᾽ ἐγὼ χαίρειν λέγω. 


These words contain and formulate the sin 


of Theseus, as is shown clearly when Artemis 
comes and denounces him, 


ς ἃ 3 
1321. ὃς οὔτε πίστιν οὔτε μαντέων Ore. 
3, > Μ Lal 
ἔμεινας, οὐκ ἤλεγξας, οὐ χρόνω μακρῷ 
΄ὔ , 3 Ν an »” ? 
σκέψιν παρέσχες, ἀλλὰ θᾶσσον ἡ o 
ἐχρῆν 
> Ἂν > ial Ν Ν , 
ἀρὰς ἐφῆκας παιδὶ καὶ κατέκτανες. 


If I am right so far, 11. 113 sums up for 
the poet and for the audience the sin of 
Hippolytus, 


τὴν σὴν δὲ Κύπριν πόλλ᾽ ἐγὼ χαίρειν λέγω, 
and Hl. 1058-9, 


Ν ΜΠ) ἊΝ la 
τοὺς δ᾽ ὑπὲρ κάρα 
lad 5», , ΣΟ ΝΣ / , 
φοιτῶντας ὄρνεις πόλλ᾽ ἐγὼ χαίρειν λέγω, 


similarly sums up the sin of Theseus, can it 
be doubted that Euripides purposely echoed 
his own phrase in order to bring home to his 
audience the recurrence of an old situation ; 
can it be doubted that the audience recog- 
nised the significance of the echo, and saw in 
it what the poet intended they should see ? 

It seems however to have escaped the 
editors (Dindorf, Monk, Paley, Mahaffy, 
Hadley) that we have here anything beyond 
a mere verbal parallelism. 

But there is another equally striking in- 
stance in the same play where Euripides 
seems to have again marked the similarity 
of two situations by the use in each case of 
the same phrase, 

When the Nurse, under the pretext of 
going for some drugs, is about to leave the 
stage in order to acquaint Hippolytus with 
Phaedra’s passion, Phaedra suspects her 
intention and expresses the fear (520) μὴ μοί 
τι Θησέως τῶνδε μηνύσῃς TOKW. The Nurse 
answers ἔασον, ὦ παῖ, ταῦτ᾽ ἐγὼ θήσω 
καλῶς. To the audience anticipating the 
story, the irony of those words could hardly 
fail to be striking. After an ‘aside’ only 
three lines long, the Nurse leaves the stage 
and at once works the irremediable mischief 
which is the source of all the tragic events 
that follow. 

The secret has come out, and Phaedra and 


150 


the Nurse have to some extent exchanged 
positions. Now it is Phaedra meditating an 
act of tremendous consequences, an act 
which shall wreck the happiness of Hippoly- 
tus and of Theseus—the act of suicide—now 
it is the Nurse who would fain avert the 
evil. 


705 ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι κἀκ τῶνδ᾽ ὥστε σωθῆναι, τέκνον. 
Phaedra replies :— 


cal ,ὔ Ν Ν Ν Ν > “ 
παῦσαι λέγουσα: καὶ τὰ πρὶν γὰρ οὐ καλῶς 
παρήνεσάς μοι κἀπεχείρησας κακά. 
> ? > Ν »” \ 4 /, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκποδὼν ἄπελθε καὶ σαύτης πέρι 

/ Ik > ‘\ ὃ Ν 5 Ν / r 
φρόντιζ- ἐγὼ δὲτἀμὰ θήσομαι καλῶς. 


The change to the middle is intelligible, 
otherwise the phrase is the same, and I can- 
not doubt that it was so chosen intentionally - 
by the poet and that it touched a chord in 
the hearts of the audience. 

Yet I notice that Miss A. M. F. Robinson 
in her translation of the play completely 
drops even the verbal resemblance between 
the two passages. The editors also are again 
silent. 

I have argued that the echoed phrase in 
each case was not accidental, but was in- 
tended by the poet and recognised by his 
audience. 

A further question arises:—Was_ the 
repetition intentional not only on the part of 
the poet, but also on the part of the dramatis 
personae, of Theseus and of Phaedra? Are 
we to consider them as consciously quoting 
words used before, or as unconsciously 
uttering what is nothing to them, but full of 
significance to the spectators of the drama ? 

We may at once dismiss the former supposi- 
tion in the earlier of the two cases. Theseus 
had not heard the words of Hippolytus which 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


he reproduced: his repetition of them is ob- 
viously a case of tragic irony. 

The other case is more doubtful. 
Phaedra says (709) 


W hen 


ἐγὼ δὲ τἀμὰ θήσομαι καλῶς, 


she has just been referring to that very con- 
duct of the Nurse which followed the Nurse’s 
words ταῦτ᾽ eyo θήσω καλῶς (521). More- 
over these words had been spoken to herself. 
It would seem very natural in her therefore 
now to remember them and to apply them to 
her own case. In a modern play we should 
hardly hesitate to take this view of Phaedra’s 
words. 

But in a Greek play we must apply other 
canons of interpretation, and when we re- 
member to what an extent dramatic interest 
was made by the Greeks to depend on Irony, 
the contrast, that is, between knowledge on 
the part of the spectators and blind uncon- 
sciousness on the part of the dramatis per- 
sonae, we may be inclined to consider Phae- 
dra’s words in this light. It would follow 
from such a conclusion that this case is ana- 
logous with the former : that Phaedra no less 
than Theseus unconsciously echoed words 
used earlier in the play, but that this re- 
petition was intended by the poet and recog- 
nised by his audience as suggesting a parallel 
in each case between two similar situations. 

It seems to me clear that in both instances 
the repetition is more than accidental. Tf 
in the second instance we attribute to 
Phaedra a cunscious use of the Nurse’s 
words, the first instance must stand on its 
own merits as a case of the character 
described above. Can other instances of the 
same kind be found in Euripides or the other 
dramatists ἢ 

G. C. M. Smiru. 


MR. WHITELAW ON 


AN interesting question is raised by Mr. 
Whitelaw in the February number of the 
Classical Review p. 12 as to this paragraph. 
He supposes it to be the fragment of a lost 
letter of St Paul to the Church of Corinth, 
to which the Apostle alludes in 1 Cor. v. 9. 
I wish briefly to inquire whether Mr. White- 
law’s solution of the problem satisfies the 
conditions ; and secondly whether there is a 
problem to need solution. 

(1) Against Mr. Whitelaw’s suggestion ob- 


2 COR. vi. 11—vi. 1. 


jection may be taken on the side of textual 
criticism. There is no external evidence 
against this paragraph. The probability that 
copies of the Pauline letters were multiplied 
from the very first (comp. Col. iv. 16 and the 
case of the Ignatian letters, Zp. Polyc. xiii.) 
and the remembrance of the critical questions 
connected with Rom. xv. xvi. and Eph. 1. 1 
make it difficult to suppose that the alleged 
insertion could have been made without some 
trace remaining in our extant authorities, 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


while the very perplexity of modern critics 
forbids the assumption that early readers or 
copyists placed the paragraph where it at 
present stands. Again, internal evidence 
does not tend to confirm the hypothesis. 
There were in operation, it seems, in the 
Corinthian Church two exactly opposite 
tendencies. On the one side the new converts 
showed a dangerous readiness to acquiesce 
and share in heathen customs (comp. | Cor. 
vii. 10 σὲ τὸν ἔχοντα γνῶσιν ἐν εἰδωλίῳ κατα- 
κείμενον : χ. 20 οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν 
δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι). On this matter in the 
First Epistle the Apostle, uncertain of his 
ground with the Corinthians, speaks with 
caution and reserve, implying more than he 
actually says. On the other hand there are 
indications of a revolt, partial and temporary 
no doubt, in the direction of an extreme 
Puritanism (comp. 1 Cor. v. 9 ff. : vi. 1 ff.). 
As to the former tendency the Apostle coun- 
sels abstention from associations properly 
heathen ; as to the latter he deprecates a with- 
drawalfrom human society. Now in the pas- 
sage in question, to whatever letter it belongs, 
St. Paul is dealing with the former danger and 
that in terms sufliciently explicit, e.g. τίς 
κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος ; Tis δὲ συμφώνησις 
Χριστοῦ πρὸς Βελίαρ, ἢ τίς μέρις πιστῷ μετὰ 
ἀπίστου; τίς δὲ συγκατάθεσις ναῷ θεοῦ μετὰ 
εἰδώλων; It is of course possible that the 
Corinthians read into these words such a 
definite misunderstanding of St. Paul’s 
teaching as he alludes to in 1 Cor. v. 9; but 
the gloss there implied seems to postulate 
an Apostolic direction which would more 
immediately suggest it. It is a natural, if 
not a necessary, conclusion from St. Paul’s 
language in 1 Cor. v. 9 ff. that he is there 
referring to the exact phrase which he had 
used in the lost letter—py συναναμίγνυσθε 
TOpVOLs. 

(2) But the more important question is 
whether there is any problem here to need 
solution. Is the position from which Mr. 
Whitelaw starts—‘The passage, where it 
stands, is without connexion before or 
after ’—a tenable one? In answering this 
question it is important to notice the charac- 
ter of St. Paul’s second letter to Corinth. 
Probably there is no literary work in which 
the cross-currents of feeling are so violent 
and so frequent. Again and again they 
sweep the Apostle far away from his intended 
course of thought and grammar. He 
struggles back again, only to be once more 
hurried away in yet another direction. Or, 
to change the metaphor, we see a thought 
bubbling up from the ground of the argu- 
ment fresh and vigorous. But at once it 


151 


passes beneath the sudden rising-ground of 
some new idea; at length it appears again 
tinged with the soil through which it has 
flowed. Thus ii. 17 πρὸς ταῦτα τίς ἱκανός ;— 
but the question is at once buried beneath 
the thought of the contrast between St. Paul 
and others ; when it emerges once more in 
iii. 5 it is in an altered and an apologetic 
form. Again, in iv. 1 St. Paul writes οὐκ 
ἐγκακοῦμεν GAka—we expect ἀνδριζόμεθα or 
θαρροῦμεν to express the proper contrast. 
But there flashes into St. Paul's mind the re- 
membrance of eruelaccusations. So breaking 
through the strict sequence of thought, he 
continues ἀπειπάμεθα τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης. 
The original idea and phrase reappear in iv. 
16 οὐκ ἐγκακοῦμεν GAAG...... ; but the inter- 
vening context (¢.g. 6 θάνατος ἐν ἡμῖν ἐνεργεῖ- 
rat) influences the words which follow, 
‘though our outward man is decaying, yet 
our inward man is renewed day by day.’ 
But here again the Apostle is carried away 
by the thought of the contrast between the 
weakness of the present and the glory of the 
future. Once more the contrast to ἐγκακοῦ- 
μὲν appears in the θαρροῦντες of v. 6 and, 
the grammar meantime having suffered ship- 
wreck, in the θαρροῦμεν of v. 8 and the φιλο- 
τιμούμεθα of v. 9. 

Remembering this characteristic of the 
Epistle we turn to vi. 11—14....1) καρδία ἡμῶν 
πεπλάτυνται (cf. Ps. exvili. 32 ὅταν ἐπλάτυνας 
τὴν καρδίαν μου)... πλατύνθητε Kat ὑμεῖς. At 
this point the Apostle recalls the condition 
of the Corinthian Church and their danger 
of a false tAatvocpds. He must emphatically 
and abruptly guard his words: μὴ γίνεσθε 
ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις (comp. Lev. xix. 19 
τὰ κτήνη σου οὐ κατοχεύσεις ἑτεροζύγῳ). That 
this is the connexion of ideas becomes, I ven- 
ture to think, almost certain when we com- 
pare another passage of the Law: πρόσεχε 
σεαυτῷ μὴ πλατυνθῇ ἡ καρδία Tov καὶ παραβῆτε 
καὶ λατρεύσητε θεοῖς ἑτέροις καὶ προσκυνήσητε 
αὐτοῖς (Deut. xi. 16). 

But what of the connexion of the para- 
graph in question with the succeeding con- 
text? The Apostle resumes no doubt his 
earnest pleading for sympathy. But a 
shadow has passed over his enthusiasm. 
Above he had written, ὡς τέκνοις λέγω. Now 
he writes, οὐδένα ἠδικήσαμεν, οὐδένα ἐφθείραμεν, 
οὐδένα ἐπλεονεκτήσαμεν. The language he 
had used just above (v. 1) καθαρίσωμεν ἑαυτοὺς 
ἀπὸ παντὸς μολυσμοῦ σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος, 
calls to his mind the charges made by some 
of the Corinthian partisans against himself 
—-the charge of corrupt motives and the 
charge, which seems to be lurking in the 
background of some passages, of antinomian- 


152 


ism (iv. 2 Comp. 1 
Thess. ii. 3 ἡ yap παράκλησις ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐκ 
πλάνης οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ). Thus 
the connexion of thought at the beginning 
and at the end of the paragraph is clear and 
natural. 

If the character of the Epistle be remem- 


“ ΄ 
τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


bered, its deep emotion and its consequent 
abruptness of thought and expression, the 
reasons for believing that the paragraph is 
part of the original letter seem to me valid 
and convincing. 


F. H. CuHase. 


STUDIES IN 


THe majority of classical students are 
wont to underestimate or neglect this writer. 
His ‘Gallic War’ to the average student 
has been chiefly a Latin primer and a collec- 
tion of examples to illustrate oratio obliqua 
or the various functions of the ablative 
absolute. With a feeling akin to condescen- 
sion the mature student—unless he himself 
be a teacher of boys—will take up this 
author asa man would take up a pair of 
dumb-bells which once had done him service. 
The present writer distinctly recalls the 
earnest admonition on this matter uttered 
many years ago (1873) by one who is a 
master in this department, Prof. Emil 
Hiibner of Berlin. This distinguished 
Latinist urged the professional classical 
students to return to Caesar with their 
matured powers, if they wished to do him 
justice. 

In Germany and France indeed, more than 
in England and in the United States, very 
many distinguished scholars have devoted 
themselves to this writer. It might indeed 
appear presumptuous to attempt anything 
in this field after Druwmann, Merivale, and 
Mommsen, or even to supplement the work 
of Schneider (whose acute observation has 
furnished a great deal of Long’s edition), 
Nipperdey, Riistow, Herzog, Kraner, Dober- 
enz, Dinter, Kichly, and Holder, whose 
edition of 1882, while probably not displacing 
the fearfully expensive edition of Nipperdey, 
is distinguished by its index verborum, and 
thereby probably suggested the preparation 
of the special lexica by Merguet, Meusel, etc., 
all of which began to appear after 1882. Of 
those who combined the study of the subject- 
matter with that of the text, no one deserves 
a higher place than H. 7. Heller of Berlin. 
For his exhaustive analysis of Caesar’s syn- 
tax and the application of the results gained 
to the tasks of writing Latin, etc., Hey- 
nacher deserves more than passing notice. 
The topographical and antiquarian studies 
of Napoleon III. and Goeler have been 


CAESAR 1. 


worthily continued by v. Kampen of Gotha, 
whose special wall-map of Gaul deserves a 
place in every Latin school-room. Apart 
from various notices in Polybius, Caesar is 
the first of national historiographers to the 
consciousness of educated Frenchmen, and 
eminently so in the eyes of French anti- 
quarians. 

A long line of investigations in the Revue 
Archéologique, particularly within the last 
twenty-five years, attest the earnest devo- 
tion of French students, by whom the coins, 
weapons, inscriptions, burial-places, social 
customs and ethnology of Gaul have been 
accurately studied. Pre-eminent among 
these scholars is Alexandre Bertrand, the inde- 
fatigable curator of the Musée de St. Germain. 
Diefenbach’s Celtica and Lindenschmit’s 
(Mainz) Studies of Roman, Gallic and 
German arms, etc., must also be mentioned 
here. 


ΤΕ 


In the case οἵ Caesar’s book (called com- 
mentarii with a simplicity which was pro- 
ably designed) the why and the when would 
seem to the student to be closely connected. 
For the benefit of those who may wish to 
take up the subject, I name a few of the 
most competent writers dealing with design 
and time of composition. H. Kéchly, Caesar 
und die Gallier, Berlin 1871, pp. 31-32; 
Kramer, Praecfatio of his Tauchnitz edition, 
1861, pp. xvii. sqg.; Mommsen, R. G. in. 
(ed. 6), pp. 615 sgg. (Students in search 
of a complete bibliography had __ better 
turn to ‘Teuffel, or Prof. MHiibner’s 
Grundriss d. Rom. Literaturgeschichte, 
or to a special treatise by Major Max 
Jiihn’s ‘Caesar's Commentarien und ihre 
literarische und kriegswissenschaftliche 
Fortwirkung, Berlin, 1883: Ernst Sieg- 
fried Mittler und Schn.) Mommsen presents 
his view in the categorical and compact way 
peculiar to himself. Merivale does not seem 
to have attempted to solve the particular 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


question as to the occasion and design of 
the composition of the Commentaries. 

In looking for the motives of Caesar’s 
book, we may at once reject the theory of 
mere literary ambition or of the pure plea- 
sure of composition—motives such as did 
animate a Cicero, whose restless and facile 
pen was ever seeking new fields, and whose 
semi-morbid consciousness was ever on the 
alert as to the figure he was cutting in the 
world. Nor can Xenophon be compared when 
—probably in the calm repose of his squire’s 
life at Skillus—he set down the narrative 
of events quorum et ipse pars magna fuit, 
and indulged in his peculiar hero-worship. 
Caesar was not vain, apart from sensitive- 
ness about his baldness. He was too pene- 
trating for such a weakness, although he 
was no doubt conscious of the permanence 
which his work was destined to enjoy: e.g. 
when inserting the account of the grim 
valour of some Gallic patriots, as in vil. 25, 
1, ‘ Accidit suspectantibus nobis quod dig- 
num memoria visum praetereundum non 
existimavimus (compare on the other hand 
Bell. Civ. 111. 17, 1, Quibus rebus neque 
tum ‘Caesar respondendum existimavit neque 
nune ut memoriae prodantur, satis causae 
putamus). Caesar was eminently versatile. 
A political manipulator on an enormous 
scale, he became a great captain after his 
fortieth year from political necessity. But 
during the seven years from 58-51 (apart 
from short periods of enforced leisure, in one 
of which, viz. when returning! to Gaul from 
his cisalpine province, Suet. 56, he is said 
to have composed his treatise De Analogia), 
his enormously varied occupations would 
have prevented him from gratifying mere 
literary ambition. His correspondence with 
his political henchmen in or near the capital, 
variously but palpably enough reflected and 
suggested in Cicero’s letters, must, in itself 
alone, have been tremendous. 

Let us now turn to the passage which may 
to-day be considered as the accepted starting- 
point for the whole question, Hirtius, B. G. 8, 
1: ‘Ceteri enim quam bene et emendate, nos 
etiam quam facile atque celeriter eos perfec- 
erit scimus.’ This is generally taken as 
meaning that Caesar wrote the entire seven 
books in one uninterrupted effort (Nipperdey, 
praef. 2 sqq.). And indeed Caesar had 
strong motives at that particular time (51 B.c.) 
to set himself right in public opinion, Faith- 
ful as his political agents at Rome were— 
and he had spent millions in securing some 


τ Cf. the practice of Cicero in his Cilician procon- 
sulate, ad. Att. v. 17, 1: ‘hane epistolam dictavi 
sedens in raeda, cum in castra proficiscerer.’ 


153 


of them, e.g. Curio—the senatorial party in 51 
and 50 was striving, with 8411 the machinery 
of the home government except the tribunate 
and the comitia at its command, to reduce 
Caesar to the ranks of a private citizen.” 

Α fewyearsearlier, before the deathof Julia 
and the estrangement from Pompey, the 
machinery of the government had run 
smoothly enough for Caesar’s interest. This 
status is well shown in Cicero’s speech of 56 
B.c. de Provinciis Consularibus, when Caesar’s 
imperium was extended by five years. But 
still, if prominent members of the sena- 
torial party as early as 58 B.c. intimated to 
Ariovistus, the German invader of Alsace, 
that they would be delighted if he were to 
kill Caesar (B. G. 1. 44), we may well a 
Jortiort infer that in 51, when the desperate 
hatred of the Optimates against Caesar had 
reached a much higher pitch, when the 
triumvirate had been disrupted—Crassus 
dead at Carrhae, Pompey flattered back to 
the leadership of the Optimates—we may 
infer, I say, that at this stage Caesar’s acts 
of his seven years’ imperium were in the 
ruling circles at Rome not only not esti- 
mated fairly, but distorted, interpreted un- 
favourably, and in every way represented to 
his discredit. This view of partisan con- 
demnation, however met by partisan com- 
mendation on the other side, found vent not 
only in motions such as the familiar one of 
Cato’s, to surrender Caesar to the survivors 
of the foully and treacherously massacred 
Usipetes and Tencteri(55 B.c.), but must have 
also been reflected in the political pamphlets 
of the day. The present writer shares with 
other students of this subject the impression 
that the general judgment of Suetonius 
about Caesar’s proconsulate was drawn from 
suchsources (rather thanfrom Asinius Pollio, 
as some have surmised). There are it is true 
judgments im Suetonius, though probably 
not ef Suetonius, which reflect a /ater stand- 
point, e.g. Div. Tul. 22, ‘ex omni provinci- 
arium copia Gallias potissimum elegit cuius 
emolumento et opportunitate sit materia 
triumphorum.’ In the same chapter we 
read also: ‘et initio quidem Galliam Cisalp- 
inam Illyrico adjecto lege Vatinia accepit, 
mox per senatum Comatam quoque, veritis 
patribus ne si ipsi negassent, populus et 
hance daret. Quo gaudio elatus non temper- 
avit quin paucos post dies frequenti curia 
tactaret invitis et gementibus adversariis 
adeptum se quae concupisset, proinde ex eo 
insultaturum omnium capitibus,’ with further 


2 Cf. particularly the reports which Caelius sent to 
Cicero in Cilicia in 51 B.c., Cicero ad. Fam. viii. 
8, 9. 


154 


unsavoury allusion to the intrigue with Nico- 
medes. 

This in the senate—before the cat-and-dog 
performances of Cato and Clodius and the 
Milonian era had done so much to lower the 
gravitas of that body. The passage last 
quoted (or its source) smacks of vindictive 
partisanship. The narrative of Suetonius 
continues in the same spirit (24) : ‘ Nec deinde 
ulla belli occasione ne iniusti quidem ac 
periculost abstinuit, tam foederutis quam 
infestis ac feris gentibus wltro lacessitis, adeo 
ut senatus quondam legatos ad explorandum 
statum Galliarum mittendos decreverit ac 
nonnulli (Cato and his followers) dedendum 
eum hostibus censuerint.’ The animus here 
is palpable enough. To this we may add 
(ib. 54), ‘in Gallia fana templaque deum 
donis referta expilavit, urbes diruit saepius 
ob praedam quam ob deliccum.’ 


Let us now turn to Caesar’s own writing 
about his proconsulate, taking up a number 
of passages in which, particularly if they be 
taken together, the apologetic and semi-con- 
troversial character of the commentaries 
becomes probable, if not evident, 

The Helvetii, having failed in their effort 
to pass the Rhone below Geneva and thus 
enter the province, had passed through the 
defiles of the Jura, crossed the Saone, with 
heavy losses, not much to the north of 
Lyon, and were marching away from the 
provincia, But their ultimate destination 
was Saintonge, north of the Gironde, and the 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


success of their attempt, says Caesar, would 
threaten the provincia of which they would 
become ‘neighbours’ (Santonum fines... . 
qui non longe a Tolosatium finibus absunt, 
quae civitas est in provincia I. 10, 1). Non 
longe indeed !—about 200 mules, though 
Caesar is right in noting the absence of all 
natural barriers. 

Another motive for his Helvetian cam- 
paign was the earnest petitions! of the 
Aedui to save them from the Helvetian 
locusts (I. 11, 3-4). These things, he inti- 
mates, and not his ownambition determined 
him to pursue the Helvetii (I. 11, 6). The 
insolence and arrogance of the Helvetian 
chief Divico, who represented the memory of 
a Roman humiliation, is cleverly introduced 
by Caesar in such a way that the latter 
appears as the avenger of national honour and 
restorer of Roman prestige. Caesar’s solemn 
reference, in the Herodotean vein, to the 
custom of the immortal gods to be indulgent 
to overweening pride with designed patience 
in order to make the ultimate catastrophe the 
more telling—all this is a trifle forced, 
although no doubt flattering to Roman 


pride. 
E. G. Srmter, Pu. D. 


New York. 


1 As to their intensity and sincerity we have but 
Caesar’s statement. It is curious that the movement 
of the Helvetii should have had the active co-opera- 
tion and sympathy of that party among the Aedui 
who followed the leadership of the most powerful ‘of 
their barons, Dumnorix. 


(To be continued.) 


HORATIANA., 


In venturing a few emendations of the text 
of Horace, I do not think it worth while to 
support them by any express appeal to pa- 
laeography. Such an appeal implies a know- 
ledge, or at least a theory, of epochs in the 
tradition, whereas we can fix no dates in 
the ancestry of our Horatian MSS. All our 
oldest copies are written in minuscules: all 
come from Northern Europe: all are about 
900 years later than Horace’s time and 
nearly all are incomplete. Again, at almost 
every ditliculty, we find either that our MSS. 
are agreed or that they vary, in a haphazard 
way, between (substantially) only two read- 
ings, both of which usually make some sense. 
The facts in general suggest an incorrect 


and blurred archetype and two restorations 
of it: but the details! suggest further that 
there was a separate archetype of the Lyrics, 
of the Satires and of the Epistles. Our 
MSS. seem to be composite in two ways: 
firstly, the separate works were taken from 
distinct sources ; and, secondly, in each work 
the scribe had variants before him, between 
which he selected. The date of these vari- 
ants is the difficulty, for those which seem 
to be late (such as pardus for pagus in C. 
iii. 18. 12, or comptus for coronatus in C. 1]. 
7. 7) are just as well supported as those 


1 For instance with one exception, res sponsore for 
responsore in Ep. i 16. 43, all the striking readings 
of the oldest Blandinian are in the Satires. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 15 


which seem to be early. Where the history 
of a text isso vague, it is useless to be talking 
of capitals and uncials and half-uncials and 
the like or of peculiarities in the writing of 
any particular MS. : an emendation is plau- 
sible only if it improves the sense and sug- 
gests an error possible in almost any style of 
writing. 

Carm. ui. 5. 84—37 

Μὲ Marte Poenos proteret altero 

qui lora restrictis lacertis 
sensit iners timuitque mortem 
hic unde uitam sumeret inscius (aptius) 
pacem duello miscuit. O pudor! ete. 


The MSS. all have λὲς in 37, and most have 
inscius, but several aptius. Bentley, object- 
ing to an abrupt stop at mortem (cf. iv. 9. 
50) and also thinking that hic should rather 
be dle (as in 1. 32), proposed ‘ timuitque mor- 
tem hinc u. u. 5. aptius pacem et duello m.’ 
The reading of Haupt and many others 
‘hic—anxius’ does not touch Bentley’s objec- 
tions. The only other suggestion is Mr. 
Housman’s ‘fine unde uitam swmere tustius 
pacemque bello miscuit.’ The sense which 
Bentley and Housman assign to hine, viz. ‘a 
pugna, ferro, manu,’ seems to me too vague 
for the occasion. The sword from which 
the soldier should fear death is the enemy’s: 
the sword with which he should win life is 
his own. I would propose, therefore, ‘tim- 
uitque mortem inc unde uitam sumere twr- 
pius. Hine unde means ‘from the enemy 
from whom’ it is disgraceful to take life 
(cf. Carm. 111. 11. 38, unde non times: Sat. 
i. 4. 6, hine omnis pendet). The soldier is 
convicted of a real confusion of thought, 
which is put epigrammatically in ‘pacem 
duello miscuit.’ In peace, as Ruskin insists, 
it is brave to save your life: in war it is 
brave to lose it. For miscere in the sense 
of ‘to make no difference between’ cf. Zp. 
1. 16. 54 miscebis sacra profanis. 


Carm. iii. 14. 1O—12 
uos, o pueri et puellae, 
iam uirum expertae, male ominatis 
parcite uerbis. 


In 11, three good MSS. have eaperte: the 
scholl. and many MSS. have male ominatis, 
but most of the latter have male nominatis, 
an unparalleled use. I propose 

‘jam uirum eapectate. male ominatis’ etc., 
where wirwm means, as often, ‘the pattern 
man’ and parcite is addressed to the whole 
throng of sightseers. The abruptness is 
similar to ‘fauete linguis’ in Οὐ. iii. 1. 2 
and elsewhere. The rhythm is in Horace’s 
later style, but the ode is late (B.c. 24), like 


i, 12, which begins ‘Quem uirum aut 
? 5 
heroa.’ 


Carm. iv. 2. 49 
teque dum procedis io triumphe ! etc. 


All MSS. and scholiasts have teque, a 
famous crux. I propose ‘ zoque,’ io being a 
monosyllable as in Catullus 1]xi. on which 
see a long note of Munro’s in Critic. and 


Eluc. pp. 1386—138. 
Sat. 1. 1. 108, 109 


ailluc unde abit redeo nemon’ ut auarus 
se probet ac potius laudet diuersa sequentes. 


All existing MSS. have nemon’ ut or ne 
non ut: the Blandinius antiquissimus alone 
had qui nemo ut auarus, which can be ex- 
plained only by Mr. Palmer’s desperate ex- 
pedient of supposing an ellipse of ‘ fiat’ (se. 
qui fiat ut nemo auarus etc.). I would sug- 
gest 

‘nemone suam rem (sua ré) 


Sed probet’ ete. 


Orelli, Holder and others read ‘nemo ut 
auarus, but the exclamation, rather than 
the question, seems to me in place at the end 
of a satire which shows the folly of discon- 
tent, and I feel to want ‘sed’ or nothing. 
For ‘ probo’ and ‘laudo’ used together L. 
and §. give several examples under the 
former word. A somewhat similar corrup- 
tion appears in Fp. 11. 1. 226, where for 
60 rem many MSS. have tem fore. 

Yat. τι. 2. 9—14. 

leporum sectatus equoue 
lassus ab indomito, uel si Romana fatigat 
militia assuetum graecari, seu pila uelox 
molliter austerum studio fallente laborem, 
[sew te discus agit, pete cedentem aera disco, | 
cum labor extuderit, ete. 


‘Totus hic locus uidetur claudicare’ says 
Lambinus, and all other editors agree. The 
remedy is to omit ]. 13 : then Romana militia 
and pila uelox are alternative modes of tiring 
yourself, and fatigat goes with both. The 
unusual form si—seu, which is due to the 
preceding wel, caused the interpolation. 


Sat. ii. 3. 208, 209 
qui species alias uert scelerisque tumultu 
permixtas capiet, commotus habebitur ete. 


Holder’s note is ‘wert sceleris ayvEDLv 
ueris celeris Ἐ(φψ)ὴλ (Al) weris sceleris g.’ 
Porphyrio seems to have had weris celert. I 
would propose 

‘alias weris cerebrique tumultu 
permixtas,’ 
For alius with the abl. of comparison cf. Hp. 
i. 16. 20 (aliwm sapiente). Cerebrum in 


150 


the same sense occurs in]. 75 of this satire ; 
tumultus mentis in Carm. 11. 16. 10: permix- 
tus in the sense of ‘interchanged’ isin Lucr. 
111. 749. Cf. also miscere above. 

Ep. i, 2. 29—31 (Aicinoi iuuentus) 

Cui pulchrum fuit in medios dormire dies et 

ad strepitum citharae cessatum ducere curam. 


All MSS. have cessatwm, and most have 
curam, but several (incl. Bland. antiq.) have 
somnum. This seems a clear case of damage 
to the archetype and a heroic remedy is 
therefore not inadmissible. I think the 
original reading may have been 


cessare et ludere et ungui. 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


The same words occur again in Lp. i. 2. 
183, and the same jingle (cessare et quaerere et 
uti) in Ep. i. 7. 57. It seems in Horace’s 
manner to repeat these jingles, as libertino 
patre natum in Sat. 1. 6, 6, 45, 46 and some- 
thing like it in 21: also Jaeuo suspensi ete. 
in Sat. i. 6. 74 and Lp. i. 1. 56, where Orelli 
gives five more examples of repeated lines. 
Here in particular the string ‘cessare et 
ludere et ungui’ is the more appropriate 
because Horace is thinking of Homer’s 


αἰεὶ δ᾽ ἡμῖν δαίς τε φίλη κίθαρίς τε χοροί τε 
“ , 2 ore Ν ia Ν ᾿ > z 
εἵματά τ᾽ ἐξημοιβὰ λοετρώ τε θερμὰ καὶ ευναί. 


in 6. 248, 249. J. Gow. 


THE ORIGIN OF ‘OMENTUM™.’ 


‘Foups passing from one viscus to the 
other...are called omenta from their his- 
torical connection with extispicious augury,’ 
says Professor Macalister in his great work 
on Anatomy just published (p. 391). 

Modern philologists have passed over such 
a derivation with the silence of contempt, 
but seeing from the statement quoted above 
that this view is not, as might have been 
thought, altogether defunct, [ have under- 
taken the present article in the hope of 
showing that, however dubious the origin of 
Omentum may be, the word has no connec- 
tion with omen. 

Bochart in his Hierozoicon (1796) hesit- 
atingly mentions the derivation from omen, 
as the view of others, not his own: ‘ Ex 
omenti statu et situ haruspices multa coniec- 
tabant, proinde Lucanus ubi de inauspicato 
Aruntis sacrificio, lib. I. vers. 624,‘‘ Cor iacet, 
et saniem per hiantes viscera rimas Emittunt 
produntque suas omenta latebras.” Et in 
Oedipo Senecae Manto extis inspectis Tire- 
siae patri tam caeco inter caetera dicit,— 
“non molli ambitu Omenta pingues viscerum 
obtendunt sinus.” Itaque Omentum ab 
omine quidam deducunt. Quod etsi prae- 
stare nolim, tamen puto verisimilius quam 
quod plerique statuunt, Omentum ab omaso 
dici ; quia in omaso prima est brevis’ (Lib. 
111.). Even omasum itself is credited with 
the same origin by Joannes Janua (Du 
Gange, Glossarium, Vol. V1I.), ‘Omasus (sic) i. 
tripa vel ventriculus qui continet alia viscera 
quia in ipso rerum eventus inspiciebant.’ 

Now, if Omentum be derived from omen, 
it would surely be because the Omentum was 
the part par excellence, from which omens 
were drawn. 


But so far from this being the case, it is 
difficult to prove that the omenta were ever 
the source of omens, and it is practically 
certain that, if ever so used, they were 
merely a minor source. 

Tt will be observed that in the two pas- 
sages quoted by Bochart there is no mention 
of omens being taken from the omenta ; in 
both, they are simply named as parts seen 
when the viscera are exposed. 

If references to the extispicium be com- 
pared, it will be seen that the liver and the 
nobler organs were .themselves the chief 
objects of inspection, e.g. ‘Nam non placet 
Stoicis, singulis iecorum fissis aut avium 
cantibus interesse Deum’ (Cie de Div. 1. 52) : 
and again (ibid.), describing an ominous 
victim, ‘in extis bovis opimi cor non fuit’: 
and again, ‘ postero die caput in iecore non 
fuit’ : cf. also ‘ Quid enim habet haruspex cur 
pulmo incisus etiam in bovis extis dirimat 
tempus?’ (Cic. de Div. I. 39), and similar 
passages in Plin. H.W. XI. 71 and Val. Max. 
I. 6, 13, ete. 

Later writers on the subject have noted 
this order of importance, e.g. Caspar Peucer 
(1593) in a passage too long to quote, but I 
give the marginal headings, (1) ‘victimis 
explorandis cur epar primo consideratur’ : 
(2) “ Cordis consideratio in extispicina’ : (3) 
‘ Viscerum minus principalium consideratio’ : 
the last section beginning thus, ‘Corde 
explorato ad fellis, lienis, pulmonum, et mem- 
branarum viscera ambientium consideration- 
em se vertebant’ (Comment. de praecipuis 
Divinationum generibus, p. 361), and M. 
Johannes Praetorius (1677) in a pamphlet 
published with others on kindred subjects, 
‘ Aruspicium, cum ex inspectis avium aut 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


aliorum animalium sacrificatorum extis prae- 
cipue iecore (unde ἡπατοσκοπία dicta) colli- 
guntur futura.’ 

The very name extispex occurring at least 
as early as Cicero, and the use of ‘exta’ by 
him, not ‘ viscera,’ would seem to show that 
it was the nobler organs (exta), not the 
whole entrails (viscera), from which divina- 
tions were chiefly made. The word Omentum 
was certainly in use before Cicero’s time 
(Catullus B.c. 50), yet in the whole of the 
De Divinatione, though referring frequently 
to the extispicium, he never once uses the 
word. Is it possible, if the Omentum were 
an important source of omens, as it surely 
must have been, if derived from omen, that 
Cicero in such a treatise should never once 
mention it ? 

Further, if Omentum played such an im- 
portant part, we should expect to find the 
equivalent ἐπίπλοον used in Greek divination, 
but I cannot find a single passage in which 
it is so used; the word is σπλάγχνα with the 
same distinction as in the Latin, σπλάγχνα 
(the nobler organs), not ἔντερα or κοιλία (the 
whole entrails). 

Again, if the derivation from omen be 
correct we should expect some traces of the 
connection in the earliest writers using the 
word. It occurs as early as Catullus, ‘ Natus 
ut accepto veneretur carmine divos, Oment- 
um in flamma pingue liquefaciens,’ then in 
Celsus Lib. IV. cap. 1, al., who, though he is 
usually careful to explain the origin of 
anatomical terms, has nothing to say on 
Omentum. Other passages in chronological 
order are, Pers. VI. 74 ‘Ast illi tremat 
omento popa venter,’ id. 17. 47 ‘Tot 0101 cum 
in flammis iunicum omenta liquescant’ : 
Plin. Δ΄. ΗΠ. XI. 37, 80 ‘Ventriculus atque 
intestina pingui ac tenui omento integuntur’ 
(it is noteworthy that just above he has been 
speaking of prodigies, yet mentions no con- 
nection with omentum) : Juv. XIII. 117 “Τὰ 
carbone tuo charta pia tura soluta Ponimus 
et sectum vituli 1ecur albaque porci Omenta.’ 
Later, Macrobius uses it of periosteum, ‘ Ut 
os secetur, omentum quod impositum est ossi 
cruciatum, dum sectionem patitur, importat 
(Sat VII. 9), and of the Meninges, ‘ cerebrum 
...non suo sensu, sed vestitus sul, id est 
omenti, hunc importat dolorem (ibid.). 

In none of these passages is there the 
slightest hint of connection with omen ; nor 
even in Varro, who is not slow to connect 
similarity of sound with similarity of origin ; 
‘Indidein (ab ore) Omen, Ornamentum ; 
alterum quod ex ore primum elatum est 
Osmen dictum, alterum nunc cum praeposi- 
tione dicitur volgo Ornamentum, quod sicut 


157 


olim Ornamentum scenici plerique dicunt. 
Hine Oscines dicuntur apud augures quae 
ore faciunt auspicium’ (De LZ. Lat. VI. 76). 

The derivation from omen seems to me by 
the above arguments sutliciently disproved : 
but there remains the difficult task of 
assigning a satisfactory origin to Omentum. 

By modern etymologists several sugges- 
tions have been made : (1) = augmentum 1.6. 
fat: (2) contracted from ovimentum, as if 
originally confused with the ovary : (3) con- 
tracted from operimentum (Scaliger, 1619, 
on Aristot. H.A. I. 136 says ‘Omentum, 
valde concisa voce, fuit enim operimentum ’) : 
so Scarabelli, who also suggests (4) akin to 
Celtic ‘om’ = in, on, whence idea of ‘ inward 
parts.’ ‘Omentum dal celt. ‘‘om,” lo stesso 
che ‘am,’ sopra, intorno, tutto all’ intorno, 
se pur non ὃ sincope di operimentum, coper- 
tura’: (5) derived from same root as ὑμήν. 

This last view has found many supporters ; 
Vaniéek with Bauchfell and others would 
refer these words to a root ,/au = to clothe, 
or cover, seen in induo, exuviae ; while Byrne 
in his Origin of Greek and Latin and Gothic 
Roots (1888), tracing language to its primitive 
phonetic origin, says that the sound ‘w’ 
conveys the idea of an enclosure, and a like 
idea is conveyed by ‘m’: thus we get on the 
one hand ὑμήν, o-mentum; on the other 
μήνιγξ, mem-brana, o-men-tum. In any case 
supporters of this view attribute to Omen- 
tum the primary meaning ‘veil’ or ‘cover.’ 
In favour of this is to be said that Aristotle 
several times actually uses ὑμήν in the de- 
scription of Omentum, eg. ἔστι δὲ τὸ μὲν 
ἐπίπλοον ὑμὴν τοῖς μὲν στέαρ ἔχουσι στεατώδης 
τοῖς δὲ πιμελὴν πιμελώδης (P.A. IV. 3. 1), 
ἔστι δὲ (τὸ ἐπίπλοον) τὴν φύσιν ὑμήν (Π.4.1. 
136), ἔστι δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐπίπλοον ὑμήν (H.A. 11]. 
174), οἵ. Athenaeus p. 107 ὁ ἐπίπλους εἴρηται 
ἐπὶ τοῦ λίπους καὶ τοῦ ὑμένος. 

The Omentum does present exactly the 
appearance of a curtain or veil concealing 
most of the small intestine when the ab- 
domen is opened ; and this sense of ‘covering’ 
would account for the later use of the word 
= periosteum, and meninges. 

The choice, I think, les between this last 
Jau or ,/u, and a root ,/op, seen in ὀπός, 
and possibly in ops, probably closely allied 
with the root of πίων, opimus, ete. 

It is evident that in most of the places 
where it occurs, especially in descriptions of 
sacrifices, the main idea of the passage is 
‘fat,’ e.g. in those quoted above, ‘Omentum 
inflamma pingue liquefaciens’ (Catull.), ‘Tot 
tibi cum in flammis iunicum omenta liques- 
cant’ (Persius), ‘tremat omento popa venter’ 
(Persius), ‘ Omenta pingues viscerum obtend- 


108 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


unt sinus’ (Seneca), ‘ ventriculus atque intes- 
tina pingui ac tenui omento integuntur’ 
(Plin.). The corresponding Greek word ἐπί 
πλοὸν is constantly associated with words 
meaning ‘ fat,’ e.g. in Aristotle quoted above 
(P.A. 1ν. 8. 1) and elsewhere ; so the κνίσσα of 
the Homeric sacrifice isexplained by scholiasts 
as ἐπίπλοον, 6.5. κατά τε κνίσσῃ ἐκάλυψαν 
Δίπτυχα ποιήσαντες, Whereon scholiast, Διπλ- 
σαντες τὴν κνίσσαν, νῦν δὲ λέγει τόν ἐπίπλουν, 
and Hesychius, δίπτυχα: δύο ἐπιβολὰς ἔχοντα 
ἢ διπλοῦν, ὥστε τῷ μὲν ὑπεστρῶσθαι τὸν ἐπί- 
πλοον τῷ δὲ ἐπιβεβλῆσθαι. 

Further, the Semitic representatives of 
Omentum, eg. Arabic and Syriac ‘Tharb’ 
and ‘Tharba,’ are said to mean ‘fat,’ and 


indeed this latter sense is the only one that 
survived in the form ‘Zirbo,’ used in Sar- 
dinia. 

Lastly, perhaps the most obvious character- 
istic of the gastrocolic fold of the peri- 
toneum, the Omentum, is the quantity of 
adipose tissue present. Quain speaks of it as 
sometimes ‘loaded with fat.’ On the whole, 
therefore, I am in favour of the root /op, to 
which perhaps should also be referred 
omasum (said however by Philoxenus, Gloss., 
to be Gallic), and the very late word omin- 
ada, = ‘bosse, tumeur, abscés’ (Maigne 
and Migne, Lew.). 

Gero. F. STILL. 


HADLEY’S HIPPOLYTUS. 


Hippolytus. With Introduction and Notes 
by W.S8. Hapiey. 12mo, pp. 146. Cam- 
bridge University Press. 28. 


THis excellent edition of the Hippolytus 
begins with a refreshing protest against the 
‘ravages’ committed upon ancient texts by 
critics whose ‘vastness of learning’ is not 
‘directed by infallibility of taste.” ‘The 
authority of the MSS.,’ this editor thinks, 
‘is surely of some weight.’ He remarks 
(p. 124) that the Hippolytus has suffered 
especially, in the way of wholesale excision 
and alteration, from ‘the will-o’-the-wisp-like 
influence’ exercised on the ingenuity of 
editors by the first edition (the ‘Im. καλυπ- 
τόμενος). Accordingly, we have here a text, 
by no means unduly conservative, of which 
every page gives proof of care, judgment, 
and taste. The well and even brilliantly 
written introduction contains some admir- 
able remarks upon ‘ Euripides in relation to 
his times,’ and a comparison of the treat- 
ment of the subject by Euripides, Seneca, 
and Racine: and there is a good excursus on 
Orphism. The notes are full, not too full: 
there is enough, and not too much, of the 
views of other editors, and in their treat- 
ment no carping but no lack of indepen- 
dence: the style is clear and vigorous: the 
scholarship, the critical acumen, the literary 
appreciation leave nothing to be desired. 
Difficulties—of which there are many in the 
Hippolytus—are never avoided. The ac- 
curacy of the printing, too, deserves praise. 
One mistake is worth noticing, πιθοῦ Soph. 


Tr. 387 (in note on 491) for πεύθουι (The 


quotation does not seem apposite.)—Lines 
29—33 are a well-known crux. Mr. Had- 
ley, retaining the rest, rejects 32, 33, which 
indeed seem indefensible ; for, to say nothing 
of the identification of the temple with the 
Ἱππολύτειον, Phaedra could never have so pro- 
claimed her love: and he accounts ingeniously 
for their insertion, though it may be doubt- 
ed whether the interpolator intended τὸ 
λοιπὸν to mean ‘ posterity ’ and to be the sub- 
ject of évopalev.—43. ‘ public’ and ‘ private’ 
should be dropped: πολέμιος is a declared 
foe, ἐχθρὸς an enemy in feeling who may or 
may not be πολέμιος. 78. The justification 
of ‘the bold figure of Αἰδὼς tending and 
keeping ever fresh the beauty of the meadow, 
as a maiden’s purity is ever reflected in her 
face,’ is excellent. For εἴληχεν ‘has taken 
them for her own,’ Pind. Ol. 1, 53, ἀκέρδεια 
λέλογχε Kaxaydpos might have been quoted. 
87. ‘round the goal’ is not satisfactory. 
κάμπτειν with τέλος, and the like, seems to 
have acquired a secondary meaning, to ‘run 
home’ along the second limb of the δίαυλος. 
It is well explained by Mr. Bayfield on Jon, 
82. 88. The point of the yap clause 1168, 
perhaps, less in the antithesis of ἄναξ and 
δεσπότης than in its serving as an apology 
for the offer of advice in the next line. 93, 
99. The fault of the logic is more apparent 
than real. ‘We all hate σεμνότης (pride): 
and so do gods. Do not with your pride af- 
front the proud goddess Aphrodite: leave 
pride to her.’ 104-7. Is the transposition 
necessary? The same doubt arises on 330, 
332, and on 1045-8. 135-8. ‘The pure form 
of bread’ can hardly be right. If Orphie 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


language is admissible here at all, fasting 
might very well be described as ‘keeping 
the body pure from bread.’ And κατ᾽ dp- 
Bpoctov στόματος may be defended, if Adu. 
ἀκτᾶς δέμας ἁγνὸν ἴσχειν is regarded as the 
opposite of σῖτον δέχεσθαι : on the principle 
laid down by Wickham on Hor. Od. 1, 35, 
28, ‘ferre iugum pariter dolosi,’ that ‘/erre 
depends not on the whole idea of dolosi, but 
on the positive attribute denied in it.’ 141 
sq. Mr. Hadley reads with Wecklein οὐ γάρ, 
and in 145 ἢ οὐκ (where Wecklein οὐδ᾽.) 
finding a trace of this in the end of φοιταλέου, 
a variant for φοιτᾷς in the previous line. 
He rests his interpretation (‘you are not 
frenzied : are you not rather wasting away 
because of Dictynna?’) on a not very ob- 
vious antithesis between φοιτᾷς and τρύχει. 
It seems better to read ἢ οὐκ and οὐ yap... 
ὀρείας aS a question: ov = nonne in both 
cases. ‘Are you not frenzied by Pan, etc. ἢ 
or are you not plagued by Dictynna?’ 169, 
Mr. Hadley reads σὺν θεοῖς ἐφοίτα for MSS. 
σὺν θεοῖσι φοιτᾷ: a great improvement. 
290. The editor deals tenderly with the ap- 
parent confusion in a former edition of 
εἱπόμην With εἶπον. 306. “ μή not οὐ μεθ., as 
putting a contingency.’ Rather, because of 
the imperative ἴσθι. A note might have 
been added on ἴσθι προδοῦσα ‘ know that you 
will have betrayed’: as if θανουμένη were 
understood, ‘ know that you will die having 
betrayed.’ 322. γὰρ with a question is 
surely conjunctive, asking for an explanation 
of what has been said. 375. ἄλλων for 
ἄλλως seems unnecessary, and does not go 
well with θνητῶν. ἄλλως ἐφρόντισ᾽ is very 
suitable for the ‘old trains of vague thought,’ 
when her own conduct was not yet in ques- 
tion. 383 sq. Mr. Hadley rejects 384-7, and 
transposes 388-390. ‘The pannus,’ he says, 
“is not even purpureus.’ But is it therefore 
not Euripidean? The λεσχαὶ καὶ σχολή, 
which are among the distracting pleasures 
of life, seem to be ‘ prating and philosophy’ 
in lieu of action, making cowards of men : and 
there is an aidws which restrains from decisive 
action when decisive action is needed—the 
temper of Hamlet—a scrupulousness akin to 
that which restrains from crime, virtuous per- 
haps or at least amiable in its origin, but its 
indulgence is one of the forms of ἡδονή and its 
results are ruinous. 388. The suggestion that 
the quasi-auxiliary use of τυγχάνω is in its ori- 
gin ‘ironical’ is ingenious : a simpler sugges- 
tion is that it arose from the desire to express 
coincidence of this and that. 441. MSS. οὔτ᾽ 
(or ox) dpa γ᾽ οὐ δεῖ τοῖς ἐρῶσι τῶν πέλας. 
Valeckenaer οὐ τἄρα λύε. Mr. Hadley conj. 
οὐκ Gp’ ἀγὼν δὴ τοῖς ἐρῶσι viv μέγας, | ὅσοι τε 


159 


μέλλουσ᾽, εἰ θανεῖν αὐτοὺς γρεών ; but the line 
has a patched look, and the meaning re- 
quired is ‘so much the worse for lovers’ ; 
whereas ἀγὼν μέγας ‘the issue is a great one’ 
is used of a critical decision still pending, or 
a critical situation on which much depends, 
and the point of the phrase lies in the uncer- 
tainty—e.g. Hipp. 496 viv δ᾽ ἀγὼν μέγας, 
σῶσαι βίον σόν (‘it is touch-and-go with your 
life’): Med. 235 κἀν τῷδ᾽ ἀγὼν μέγιστος, ἢ 
κακὸν λαβεῖν ἢ χρηστόν (‘to get a bad or a 
good one, all turns on that’): Republi. 608 
Β μέγας 6 ἀγών...τὸ χρηστὸν ἢ κακὸν γενέσθαι: 
cf. Bacch. 975, Rhes. 195. If Valkenaer’s 
reading is adopted, τοῖς ἐρῶσι τῶν πέλας Must 
mean ‘ your neighbours who are in love,’ not 
‘those who are in love with their neighbours’ 
(to which Mr. Hadley justly objects). 467. 
Mr. Hadley retains ἀκριβώσειαν, but prefers 
ἀκριβώσαις av. 491. He conjectures ὡς τάχος 
δὲ πειστέον. But διιστέον seems satisfactory : 
‘we must know one way or the other, 
whether he will or he won't.’ Certainly the 
stop after τἀνδρὸς is right. The ‘ coarseness,’ 
objected to by Weil, is of the essence of the 
speech. 504. The objection to ‘my heart 
has been well prepared by love,” i.e. is 
already prone to yield’ is that it takes no 
account of μὲν and dé. Bothe’s od for εὖ 
may be right: this gives antithesis: but if 
not, the dat. ἔρωτι is difficult, because am- 
biguous—possible however, as a dat. of 
reference (which the antithesis seems to re- 
quire), not of agent. ‘Love finds my soul 
prepared’ (or ‘ finds me mistress of my soul’ : 
whichever meaning of the verb is preferred). 
Or we might say that the idea of prepared- 
ness (or self-mastery) implies resistance. 
‘Now I am proof against passion ; but, if 
you gloze the shame, all my good resolu- 
tions will be swept away by the tide.’ 506. 
ἀναλωθήσομαι εἰς ay very well be a refine- 
ment upon the colloquial φθείρεσθαι εἰς, as 
the Schol. explains it: διαφθαρήσομαι καὶ 
ἐμπέσω (πεσοῦμαι) εἰς ὃ φεύγω, “1 shall be 
swept, with a loss of all that I prize and all 
that I believe, along the tide of passion.’ 
07. εἴ τοι δοκεῖ σοι, ‘If that is your way of 
looking at it.’ Rather ‘If you will have it 
so. The nurse pretends to give way, de- 
ceiving Phaedra. At first (477) she talks of 
ἐπῳδαί: ‘you are in for the malady: trust 
to me, and I will bring you safely through 
it’; meaning to persuade Hippolytus. 
When Phaedra protests, she says plainly, 
‘We must tell Hippolytus the truth’ 
(490-7). Phaedra still protesting—‘ Pro- 
ceed no further in thismatter’—now she says, 
‘ Well, if it must be so—a pity that you went 
wrong, but we will do what we can’ [dev- 


100 


τέρα γὰρ ἡ χάρις, viz. of what I shall now 
propose : ‘this is the next best thing I can 
do for you:’ not, as Mr. Hadley, ‘ gratitude 
is a secondary consideration’|; ‘you shall 
be cured by charms: there shall be no dis- 
grace —and the charms (don’t be afraid of 
them) will not overset your reason. But 
the remedy requires that 1 should procure 
some word or token from Hippolytus, to 
make it effectual.’ ‘How am I to take it?’ 
asks Phaedra. To which the only answer is, 
‘Leave all to me.’ ‘I am afraid you will 
tell him.’ And again, ‘Leave all to me.’ 
Certainly Phaedra is weak, and neither 
trusts nor restrains the nurse. But it is 
too much to say that she ‘suggests, under 
guise of warning, the very course the nurse 
has resolved upon.’ She says (weakly 
enough no doubt), ‘I am afraid you will 
do after all what just now you threatened.’— 
This analysis agrees with Mr. Hadley’s 
view, except that it is rather more favour- 
able to Phaedra, and that it retains 513-5, 
which Mr. Hadley rejects, not quite consistent- 
ly with the claim that his reading of the scene 
‘involves no surgery.’ 670, 1. Mr. Hadley’s 
ψόγου for λόγου is an improvement : other- 
wise he follows the MSS. 678. βίῳ (‘at 
the expense of life’) for βίου is questionable : 
βίου seems to require δυσεκπέραντον. 715, 6. 
These lines have been much rewritten. Mr. 
Hadley retains 716 (with δή τι) unaltered : 
but in 715 conjectures and prints ἕν δὲ 
πρόσθ᾽ εἰποῦσ᾽ ἐρῶ, which surely is weak. 
But προστρέπουσ᾽ (which the Schol. explains 
ζητοῦσα καὶ ἐξερευνῶσα) can hardly stand. 
Perhaps ἐπιστραφεῖσ᾽ (‘upon reflection’), or 
even ἐπιστρέφουσ᾽ : conceivably προσστρέ- 
φουσ᾽΄. Cf. the use οὗ προσβάλλειν (τὸν νοῦν)», 
Soph. Zr. 580, 844. 724. Mr. Hadley ex- 
plains, ‘Do you at any rate (unlike the 
nurse) give me good advice.’ But the καί, 
and the repeated εὖ, link the words ironically 
with the speech of the Chorus, εὔφημος ἴσθι. 
‘Yes, and don’t spare your good advice : but 
T must die.’ 921, 2. Mr. Hadley thinks that 
these lines refer to Socrates, ‘ who then, in 
the streets of Athens, was trying to convince 
men of ignorance, hoping by conviction to 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


drive them into virtue.’ 983. He adopts 
Herwerden’s conjecture ἕύντασις, remarking 
that évoracis would rather mean ‘sullen- 
ness.’ 988. ἔχει μοῖραν, not exactly ‘has a 
due share of influence,’ but nwmerwm aliquem 
habet, ‘is of some account,’ ‘ claims some 
consideration ’ (lit. ‘ fills some room,’ οἵ. ἐν 
μεγάλῃ, οὐδεμιᾷ μοίρᾳ, etc.) : ‘this also (to 
please the select audience) is of some value : 
for it is just what the other sort cannot do’ 
(it is those who cannot please the wise who 
please the crowd). 1186. As to ‘potential 
optative without av,’ in Prom. 291 ὅτῳ is in- 
terrog. (see A. Sidgwick, Agamemnon, ap- 
pendix on ‘Remote Deliberative’): and in 
Bacch. 747 one MS. has σὲ ξυνάψαι and the 
other (pr. man.) od Evvawar. But with this 
θᾶσσον ἢ λέγοι τις οἵ. Agam. 552 τὰ μέν τις εὖ 
λέξειεν εὐπετῶς ἔχειν (where however Sidg- 
wick argues for ἂν λέξειεν) : Aves. 880 ὥσπερ 
εἴποι τις τόπος : Androm. 929 ὡς εἴποι τις: 
Iph. A. 1210 οὐδεὶς πρὸς τάδ᾽ ἀντείποι βροτῶν. 
1297. ‘Yet will I not make thy path easy.’ 
Rather, as Paley, ‘I shall gain nothing by 
it (towards restoring the dead to life).’ 
1349. χρησμοῖς well explained ‘the answer 
of heaven to the curse of his father’: the 
god bestowed (ἔχρησε) what Theseus unjustly 
asked. 1416. ‘ Let be, for otherwise it will 
be the worse for you’: ἄτιμοι ‘unhonoured, 
i.e. without effect’: 1.6. Cypris will pursue 
you, not vainly, with her hatred even 
when you are dead. But δέμας will not 
bear this meaning: see Mr. Hadley’s own 
note on 131. Artemis says ‘let be: for 
even when you are dead Cypris shall not 
wreak her rage upon you unpunished’: 
meaning, ‘when you are dead she shall be 
punished for having wreaked her rage upon 
you.” For ἄτιμοι -- ἀτιμώρητοι see L. and 8. 
It is echoed by τιμωρήσομαι (1422), and 
τιμὰς (1424). Then 1419 (which is not very 
like 1454) may remain. 1441. More readers 
will agree with Mr. Hadley, who thinks this 
‘the most beautiful line in a most beautiful 
scene,’ than with Prof. Mahaffy, to whom it 
seems ‘impossible, from such an artist as 
Euripides.’ 
R. WHITELAW. 


FLAGG’S IPHIGENIA IN TAURIS. 


Euripides’ Iphigenia among the Tauwrians. 
Edited by Isaac Frace. Ginn & Co. 
1889. Square 8vo. Pp. 197. 4s. The 
Text separately, 10d. 


We have already in this country a very good 
school edition of the /phigenia in Tauris ; 


but Prof. Flagg’s book is also a good one 
and will be found useful even here, designed 
as it is for younger students than Mr. 
England’s, students who have hitherto read 
no Greek verse but Homer and are brought 
to a standstill by each fresh crasis or 
Doricism. There is therefore none of that 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


critical matter which occupies Mr. England's 
footnotes, but only an incomplete list of 
deviations from MS. authority at the end of 
the volume. Mr. Flagg has constructed his 
text with common sense, but yet I think 
that for boys Mr. England’s is the better. 
For scholars of course neither of the two 
is satisfactory, inasmuch as both are full of 
conjectures which have no probability at 
all; but for boys the matter stands other- 
wise. We cannot always give them what 
Euripides wrote, for the simple reason that 
we have it not: the next best thing then is 
to give them what he might have written, 
grammar and good sense; and this is what 
Mr. England’s freely amended text attempts 
to do. Mr. Flagg’s more conservative re- 
cension no doubt comes quite as near as 
Mr. England’s to what Euripides wrote, but 
it contains much more which Euripides not 
only did not write but could not; and the 
learner’s conception of Greek is impaired 
accordingly. The notes, if we set those 
aside which explain the various inexplicable 
things retained in the text, suit their pur- 
pose well: they are terse yet not niggardly : 
especially admirable is the way in which 
they keep the reader’s eye on the progress of 
the action, and bring to his notice those 
strokes of art which a schoolboy intent on 
construing is sure to miss. Here and there 
the taste of an islander is offended by a 
style which breathes the ampler ether and 
diviner air of America, but otherwise it is 
only details that challenge demur. 250. 
“τοῦ ξυζύγου τοῦ ἕένου: of the stranger who 
was his mate. 'The constr. seems to be like 
ὃ ἀνὴρ 6 ἀγαθός, treating ξένου as an adjec- 
tive.’ But the translation treats €évov as a 
substantive, and requires for parallel 6 
ἀγαθὸς 6 ἀνήρ. 266. ἄκροισι δακτύλοισι πορθ- 
μεύων ἴχνος, ‘ferrying his track on tiptoe.’ 
300. ὥσθ᾽ αἱματηρὸν πέλαγος ἐξανθεῖν ἁλός, “50 
that the briny deep bloomed forth with 
gore’: we need not encourage boys to 
translate in this style. 740. Amusing notes 
have been written on this passage, but none 
soamusing as Mr. Flagg’s. Iphigenia wishes 
Pylades to swear that he will carry her letter 
to Argos ; Orestes absurdly stipulates that she 
on her part shall take oath to send Pylades 
safely out of the Chersonese, to which she 
very naturally replies, ‘Why, how could he 
carry my letter unless I did?’ Other com- 
mentators have remarked on the ineptitude 
of Orestes; Mr. Flagg on the contrary 
admires the noteworthy cleverness of Iphi- 
genia, and lest we should think that such 
acumen transcends probability he explains 
it by the fact that she had not learnt to 
NO. XXXII. VOL. Iv. 


161 


read and write. 790. “ἐμπεδώσομεν : will 
make good ; cf. ἔμπεδον, ν. 758.’ The student 
who does compare y. 758 and finds that 
ἔμπεδον is there translated binding will be 
puzzled to reconcile the two notes. 902. 
Priestess and victim have been revealed to 
one another as sister and brother, and forget 
their peril in transports of emotion ; Pylades 
now interposes to remind them where they 
stand. Mr. Flagg hits off the situation with 
Columbian vivacity by saying that Pylades 
‘calls time.’ 1152. ‘The text,’ says Mr. 
Flagg, ‘is a more than Terpsichorean maze.’ 
It may be, but he should not therefore adopt 
from J. H. H. Schmidt an emendation which, 
after violently altering the MSS., produces 
gibberish. When it comes to introducing 
an οὐκέτι of which the text has no vestige, 
and then translating this οὐκέτι as if it were 
οὔπω, one prefers Terpsichore. 1415. The 
text gives one punctuation, the note assumes 
another. 1418. φόνον τὸν Αὐλίδι ἀμνημόνευ- 
tov θεᾷ προδοῦσ᾽ ἁλίσκεται : Supposing that 
this meant anything, by what imaginable 
jugglery could it be made to mean, ‘is found 
guilty of betraying the goddess’ trust in 
that forgotten murderous deed at Aulis’ 1 
The introduction, which covers fifty pages, 
is a full and interesting account of the 
legend, plot, artistic structure, and metres 
of the play. Mr. Flagg calls this ‘nega- 
tively considered, the most faultless of 
Euripides’ extant tragedies,’ and thinks that 
‘there remains not another one that is 
marred by so few of those grave lapses from 
dramatic propriety and universal good taste 
to which the poet’s mind was subject.’ Even 
negatively considered I should have thought 
the Hippolytus by far the most faultless 
tragedy of Euripides, if not indeed the most 
faultless of all tragedies except the Antigone 
alone: what lapses mar it, apart from a 
certain artificiality in the altercation of 
Theseus with the hero, I do not know; 
assuredly none to compare with the see-saw 
of divine intervention in the ἔξοδος of our 
play. Mr. Flagg defends this machinery as 
the only way to rescue the chorus, which is 
one of those excuses which Aristotle calls 
ridiculous ; the poet, as he says, should take 
care from the outset not to construct his 
play in suck a manner. And when Mr. 
Flagg says that ‘the modern reader cannot 
adequately reproduce the feelings stirred by 
this final scene in the Athenian spectator’s 
breast,’ this is to arraign Euripides, not to 
defend him. It means that he wrote for an 
age and not for all time; he defaced his 
drama that he might gladden the eyes of 
the vulgar with the resplendent stage-pro- 
M 


162 


perties of their beloved goddess: a trap to 
catch applause which does not differ in kind 
from the traditional sentiment, always wel- 
come to the gallery of our own theatres, 
that the man who lays his hand upon a 
woman, save in the way of kindness, is 
unworthy of the name of a British sailor. 
On p. 36, where Mr. Flagg speaks of the 
increased employment of a resolved arsis in 
Euripides’ later plays, the terms, ‘less care 
in the finishing,’ ‘deterioration,’ ‘laxity,’ 
‘degeneracy,’ ‘looseness,’ give a wrong im- 


THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 


pression. We are free to prefer the earlier 
practice ; but the change proceeds from no 
negligence or failure in craftsmanship. The 
Bacchae, but for the injuries of time, is 
hardly less exquisite in finish than the Medea 
itself ; only it is written on other principles. 

The text is printed clearly and, so far as 
I have observed, accurately, except for the 
common mistake ya, χοῦς, χἅτερον, χὑμῖν, 
rough breathing for coronis; θοὐμόφυλον 
however is given correctly. 

A. E. Housman. 


ULLRICH’S STUDIA TIBULLIANA. 


Studia Tibulliana, de libri secundi editione, 
scripsit Ricoarp Uuuricu. (Berolini, R. 
Weber. 1889. pp. 86.) 1 Mk. 80. 


THE author deals principally with the vexed 
questions of the chronology of ‘Tibullus’ 
poems. Ov. 77. i. 463, 464 ‘legiturque 
Tibullus et placet et iam te principe notus 
erat’ is to be interpreted to mean that Tibul- 
lus published the first book in 27 B.c. (nine 
months after Octavian had the title of Au- 
gustus conferred upon him). The second 
book, in spite of its brevity, i